67-Kilowatt Laser Unveiled 395
s31523 writes "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has announced they have working in the lab a Solid State Heat Capacity Laser that averages 67 kW. It is being developed for the military. The chief scientist Dr. Yamamoto is quoted: 'I know of no other solid state laser that has achieved 67 kW of average output power.' Although many lasers have peaked at higher capacities, getting the average sustained power to remain high is the tricky part. The article says that hitting the 100-kW level, at which point it would become interesting as a battlefield weapon, could be less than a year away."
Too big (Score:3, Insightful)
Picture [bbc.co.uk] in TFA shows a trailer which you would presumably tow through the streets of Baghdad zapping potential IED's but the opposition in that country have shown that they have the ability to adapt to changed conditions. So the bombs they plant will be in places you can't tow a huge trailer, or outside a place where blowing up the IED will only make you get the blame for killing civilians.
Too much overhead, not enough payload.
May cause som collateral damage (Score:5, Insightful)
Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield laser (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:two things (Score:3, Insightful)
Yanks developing more weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who see these laser protecting them from the terrorists' attacks on their homes, I think this is being a bit naive. This laser is to protect military equipment on the battlefield, and the ruling class at home. Just look at how the military didn't lift a finger to stop 9/11, even though they had precise warnings from multiple credible sources. The only thing the US government did was to protect Bin Laden's family after 9/11, flying them back home to safety.
Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to put the reflective surface on the intercept side of the substrate, glass or otherwise. That way, it is the first thing the laser hits. And of course, you'd better make sure that the efficiency is high enough that the laser doesn't manage to ablate the coating. Maybe coatings aren't that good an idea in the first place. Maybe thick, mirror-polished armor that can direct heat away from the surface really quickly is more what you want. Of course, a little dirt on there, you have a localized heat event, and all of a sudden things aren't as reflective as they should be, and zonk, you have a hole right through the armor.
100 KW for a battlefield laser, eh? Personally, I'm thinking being in front of one of these is a very, very bad idea.
Re:May cause som collateral damage (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yanks developing more weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
This is wrong for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I didn't mention spending as a percentage of GDP; I was talking about absolute spending.
Next, comparing spending / GDP with other nations with incredibly low GDPs isn't really giving a clear picture of what's going on. For example, who the hell is Eritrea, the so-called No 1 in military spending in the world? You see, if these countries have a very small GDP, the figures are going to look distorted even if they only buy a couple of grenades.
Next, the US hides massive amounts of its military spending. The figure they used in that CIA table was the official maintenance cost of the US military. This is the amount that would be required just to keep the military at home. But they're never at home! Things like the wars aren't counted by the US, for some reason. These are 'extra' costs. The trillion dollars that Dubya has asked for to cover the next year in Iraq, well that's not counted. The budget of the CIA, with their military coupes against democratically elected governments and such, well that's not counted. And research on weapons such as this laser. That's not counted either. So you see, if all these things were counted, then the US would be at the top of the list in terms of GDP as well. They're already at the top of the list in absolute terms, which is the point I was originally making.
That's because you're either in denial, or you'e completely fooled by the propaganda. It's YOU who needs a tin foil hat
Re:Yanks developing more weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
He also forgets that the our military has very limited ability to operate within the territorial United States (e.g. the Posse Comitatus Act.) Oh, I agree that there are many someones, somewhere, who bear the responsibility for not stopping that tragedy, especially after all the billions we've spent on security. However, the finger should be squarely pointed at civilian agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other organizations referred to by various three-letter abbreviations (if it happens again, I think the letters DHS would top the list.) The United States military is not really at fault for what amounts to a failure of domestic intelligence and/or the ability act upon it.
Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So who does that leave? (Score:3, Insightful)
Venezuela is looking very promising. They're creating soviet-style workers' councils and other community-based groups
As a general rule, the level of development of capitalism inside a country mirrors the level of attacks on personal freedoms. So the big economic powers require more and more power to control their population. This was shown very well in the recent anti-Dick Cheney demos in Sydney. We broke numerous records for police numbers, roads closed, and probably personal injuries resulting from police violence. So I don't think Australia is exactly leading the way here either. Our government's abandonment of David Hicks in Guantanimo Bay for 5 years is another example
Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' (Score:1, Insightful)
In a couple years you may actually want to look at all the stories about (for example) lasers. Does it make sense to search for "sharks"?
Ultimate Laser Pointer (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Here, kitty, kitty.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fp? (Score:1, Insightful)
for interesting news. To my dismay I find articles titled "What Vista is Really Like", "Pendulum swinging toward privacy", "A bad month for Firefox" and a bunch of user written comments moderated as 1 point.
A couple of nights ago there was "SETI finally finds something", another "humorous" article plunging well
below any standard of journalism
This has been going on for a while now, with article descriptions often ending in brain-numbing questions,
apparently as a sorry attempt to spark conversation.
(Ladies and) Gentlemen at slashdot, please don't let Fox news get to you.
I admit this post may have been provocative and if I don't like what i read, I should be the one to change my habits but yet again it is my opinion that Slashdot wasn't always this mundane.
I wish you all the the best.
Re:Yanks developing more weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
I find that people are throwing these mindless 1-line responses around as AC a lot recently
Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' (Score:3, Insightful)
2. If you want to read about lasers, search for 'sharks'
3. If you want to read about Microsoft doing something good, search for 'itsatrap'
4. If you want to read about Vista, search for 'defectivebydesign'
5. If you want to read about Canada, search for 'blamecanada'
Nowhere in the tagging beta faq does it say that the main purpose of tags is for searching. It says "We don't know exactly how this will all work, and a lot of it really depends on you." Just because a tag isn't popular doesn't mean you can't use it. I tend to use the tag 'lawsuit' for anything related to somebody suing somebody, although i don't usually see it pop up to the top.
Re:Yanks developing more weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
Jose Padilla is US citizen picked up in Chicago.