Warfare at the Speed of Light 561
unassimilatible writes "From the They Said It Couldn't Be Done Dept., the Oakland Tribune reports that the Lawrence Livermore Labratory is ensuring that the Pentagon, inside of a decade, could be armed with a beam weapon that is near-instantaneous, gravity-free and truly surgical, focusing to such hair-splitting accuracy that it could avoid civilians while predetonating munitions miles away - perhaps someday even being mounted on Humvees."
Say again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Say again? (Score:2)
Re:Say again? (Score:5, Funny)
Translation: We are anxious to get out there and blast somebody.
Quantum Leap (Score:5, Funny)
Would a gravity-free weapon (even with light) defy General Relativity?
Will the enemy start using mirrors?
Re:Quantum Leap (Score:3, Informative)
Gravity is the curving of space-time and light travels through space-time - curved or not.
If space-time is curved, then light travels a curved path.
The entire near-instantaneous, gravity-free line is fluff. You can't send a beam faster than light and as long as the beam has momentum (which light does) then it will feel the effects of gravity..
Will the enemy start using mirrors?
It depends on the frequency. Regular mirrors work for
Re:Quantum Leap (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, you are probably being facetious and my extreme boredom has driven me to type this reply.
Re:Quantum Leap (Score:2)
"making a quantum leap" is one of those phrases like "I could care less" that many people use even though it usually makes no sense at all.
Re:Quantum Leap (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quantum Leap (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Say again? (Score:2)
wait. that means that they plan on using them soon.
Re:Say again? (Score:2)
Re:Say again? (Score:5, Funny)
"In the first order, lasers are not going to work on bad days," Campbell said. "They're just not."
Dear Mr. Rumsfield:
Please schedule all future wars in excellent weather. It's great for the morale of our troops and we get to use our new laser toys.
Thanks.
G.W. Bush
Re:Say again? (Score:2)
Work great in the middle east, though.
Re:Say again? (Score:3, Funny)
Yep. No small particles of anything in the air during those frequent sandstorms. =P
Re:Say again? (Score:2)
Re:Say again? (Score:2)
soon it will be so easy to kill people without collateral damage that it will be a case of "why not?" instead of "why?"
Wrong! (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong, the DOD already uses laser rangefinders, laser-guided bombs, ring-laser gyros in submarines
Most likely they mean use of lasers as weapons, and it would be nice if it stayed that way. The inventor of the laser was recently quoted as saying that in spite of seeming like a death ray, he was unaware of any instance in which a laser had directly killed anyone, even by accident.
Re:Say again? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Real Genius reference (Score:2)
Re:Say again? (Score:2)
To paraphrase Arnold it would be "I would like a pulsed plasma rifle in the 40 mw range"
Repeat after Dr. Evil: (Score:3, Funny)
--
God says... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:God says... (Score:2)
Warning... link gives away the source of the quote.
Davak
Ice is nice! (Score:2)
Friendly Fire at the Speed Of Light! (Score:5, Funny)
Too Late!
You Vaporized Kenny! You Bastard!
one question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:another answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:another answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grammar Nazi (Score:2)
So it can avoid civilians who are miles away from the munitions? Even the few dumb bombs dropped on Iraq avoided most citizens in Kuwait...
ok, Grammar Nazi... (Score:4, Funny)
So it can avoid civilians who are miles away from the munitions? Even the few dumb bombs dropped on Iraq avoided most citizens in Kuwait...
I think (that you know) that it means munitions miles away from the LASER could be predetonated (pre- as in before the enemy sends them our way).
But the real question here is how whether they're implying that the civilians could be detonated too, separately without the munitions, now that we'll have got a big friggin' laser gun...
Thinkgeek (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thinkgeek (Score:2)
Oh great (Score:4, Funny)
Always reassuring when someone in the US Army makes such a statement...
Wow that was fast (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, Goverminator hasn't been elected for 2 weeks and Skynet is already flexing its muscles
Re:Wow that was fast (Score:2)
Wow, Goverminator hasn't been elected for 2 weeks and Skynet is already flexing its muscles
Arnie finally gets that "Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40-Watt Range" he wanted in T1, just in time to clean up Sacramento...
The Crossbow Project. (Score:2)
Re:The Crossbow Project. (Score:2)
"A big mirror makes a big beam."
"Revenge. It's a moral imperative."
"Think before you ask these questions, Mitch. 20 points higher than me, and he thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?"
"Jesus? Hello, Jesus? He hung up."
"Great, now if we can just keep it from exploding!"
"But first, I'd like to take this opportunity to complement you on your fashion sense; particularly, your slippers."
"Are you Chris Knight?" "I hope so; I'm wearing his underwear."
"Woul
Re:The Crossbow Project. (Score:2)
Re:The Crossbow Project. (Score:2)
They've done it already! (Score:2)
Jeez get creative U.S. Military
Re:They've done it already! (Score:2)
The phasers on Star Trek were obviously fake... because you could see the phaser beam.
This is obviously real-life... because the government says so.
But really... how odd would it be for a soldier to be in a foxhole and suddenly his friend next to him starts melting.
Like my kid says... "Silent but deadly"
Re:They've done it already! (Score:2, Troll)
The main problem is that any reflecting surface can act as a mirror, meaning that you are constantly at risk of the laser beam bouncing back and obliterating you. What is worse is that if the surface is concave
Re:They've done it already! (Score:2)
No problem there, just manipulate the media so that they say what you want to say and 'Bingo,' problem solved.
BTM
Re:They've done it already! (Score:3, Interesting)
I am guessing that "lasers of mass destruction" would operate in the ultraviolet. There aren't many materials that will reflect ultraviolet light back at you. At best it might glance off a mirror if it hits at a shallow enough angle.
And bullets don't reflect? (Score:5, Funny)
If you stand next to a solid surface, like a tank, and fire a conventional automatic weapon at it, you had better be wearing some serious bullet proof armor.
The main problem is that any reflecting surface can act as a mirror
Mirrors do a great job of reflecting low power light. Put a sufficiently high powered pulse laser on the scene, and the behavior of reflective surfaces becomes "non-linear" in the sense that it will simply burn through them.
and turned the h20 into h202 which is deadly hydrogen peroxide
Which is regularly used as a mouth wash, and easily noticeable because it tastes like crap and fizzes in your mouth.
Predicting the future (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Predicting the future (Score:2)
I want my personal force shield generator, with an atomic power source the size of a walnut. And some lead lined underwear, please.
Chinese embassy all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
This invention might lower the tragedies of war if we have the intell to discriminate accurately. It might also increase collateral damage/friendly fire if the device inspires overconfidence in those who press the trigger.
Re:Chinese embassy all over again (Score:2, Insightful)
This reminds me of Reason (the depleted uranium chain-gun) in Snow Crash. The major problem with weapons such as Reason is the sense of invincibility they induce in their possessors (this is approximately what Stephenson said in the novel). This invincibility may be as hazardous to the ones possessing the weapons or technology (and to those around them) as to others on the potential receiving end. If all of the people in the chain of command using the weapon have s
We'd Throw Rocks, If Necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
War won't diappear if we're afraid to use new tools. People will throw rocks at each other if they have nothing else.
Re:We'd Throw Rocks, If Necessary (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Chinese embassy all over again (Score:3, Informative)
This invention might lower the tragedies of war if we have the intell to discriminate accurately. It might also increase collateral damage/friendly fire if the device inspires overconfidence in those who press the trigger.
The military is heavily funding research into what they call "total battlefield awareness" which can be thought of as identifing every object in the battlespace. I think the idea behind this article is that if that research goes well, and the laser research goes well then we might fina
Re:Chinese embassy all over again (Score:2)
Time to order all those new highly polished chrome tanks...
In other news ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news ... (Score:4, Funny)
Defense (Score:2)
Rus
Re:Defense (Score:2)
anyways.. practicality is what's keeping it at bay.
Weapon? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet it can't be used defensively?
How about the following quotes?
"What we're building... Is a laser for cutting through mountians (roads, mines etc.)"
"What we're building... is a laser to defend our skies, country against missles"
"What we're building... is a laser to cut underground bunkers on the moon"
"What we're building... a giant popcorn popper"
This is kind of sad, when we just exploit technology with weapons in the forefront of our minds and not research or domestic uses! I mean I know they're from the DoD, but with war on their minds, goodness knows what else they're up to.
Re:Weapon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Using a laser as a rock drill is probably the least efficient method of drilling possible, it would make poisonous fumes, and those fumes would block the laser beam.
As for missiles, if the missle is shiney the laser will be reflected. I think.
The moon idea might work... maybe the fumes would disperse faster in zero atmosphere, and it might be cheaper than sending equipment.
I would guess a high power laser would vaporize a ker
Re:Weapon? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, wait...it's a "Yamato Cannon". Fine, so I'm missing two letters.
Exactly right (Score:3, Insightful)
Well one of the labs in the running is actually developing them for use in fusion, this is a side effect kinda thing, and the military paying for the weapon would help fund the research side of things. NOthing pushed forward technology like military spending
Whether we like it or not, the US spends as much on defense as the next 10-15 countries combined. Many R&D innovations start off as defense-related technologies and only later get applied to civilian problems. That's because our government is mu
BZZT! ANNT! WRONG! (Score:2, Informative)
Just as gravity is not free of the limitation that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light, nor is light free of the effects of gravity. The path light travels is affected by gravity; indeed, light can be completely trapped by a black hole.
Re:BZZT! ANNT! WRONG! (Score:2)
Anyone know a mass and distance you would need for the targeting to be off a foot?
Re:BZZT! ANNT! WRONG! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:BZZT! ANNT! WRONG! (Score:2)
Doesnt matter seeing as a Laser will travel back along the exact same geodesic as the light used to sight it. In other words you point it at what you see and it hits it.
Humvees? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Humvees? (Score:2)
Wouldn't a dolphin be a better choice?
People are afraid of sharks, it would be shoot.
But imagine someone, like an enemy child or soldier seeing that dolphin.
"Aww, what a cute fish! Come here, fishie. *ZAP!*"
And, yes, I do know dolphins aren't fish, but the person being zapped apparently didn't.
This should be obvious, but since this is slashdot I make sure to point it out so that I don't get a million "Youre stuppid! Dlopings arent not fish!" messages. ^_^
And, yes, I'm sarcastic and cynical. ^_^
And not deterred by the fact that it's harder to.. (Score:2)
exp(pi*sqrt(163))'s law dictates that you can successfully use a bluff with a frequency that is inversely proportion to the memory length of your intended audience.
Surgical? (Score:4, Funny)
But would the detonating munitions know to avoid civilians as well?
Accuracy is great but... (Score:2)
The USAF bombed a Red Cross compound in Afghanistan. Twice. Poor intelligence meant that US missiles hit a Chinese embassy in the Balkans. Friendly fire incidents are far too common.
Pinpoint precision is only half the equation.
what about mirrors? (Score:2)
Think about the goggles scientists wear in high-power laser labs. You can see fine through them, except the one wavelength their laser works at...
Ponxx
PS yes, I RTFA, but AFAIK there is no real problem creating materials reflecting IR. If you can a
Re:what about mirrors? (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple answer is "dust". The laser has very high energy. It hits the mirrored surface. The dust on the surface absorbs a large amount of energy very quickly. It essentially explodes, pitting the mirror surface. At this point, your mirror isn't
Re:what about mirrors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what about mirrors? (Score:2)
Re:what about mirrors? (Score:2)
p=E/C
so 1 seconds worth of laser power at 100 kW has momentum of:
p=100 000 J/3x10^8 m/s =~ 3.3 x10^-4 kg m/s
the momentum transfer will be barely noticable. These weapons destroy by dumping lots of energy into the target, causing heating/melting/explosions/... not by impact...
Yup lasers... (Score:2)
No blinding, just killing. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, if you take a laser pointer, and you point it at a fluffy poodle being walked by a little old lady at night, she might just get startled and scream a little bit. Not that I would know firsthand or anything...
Laser 747 suddenly viable? (Score:2)
Suddenly the 747 mounted laser for shooting down inbound missiles becomes viable. These guys are blowing through an inch of steel in 2 seconds, that means they ought to be able to blast through a missile skin much more quickly than that.
What is this thing? Some kinda weapon? (Score:2)
What is this thing? Some kinda weapon?
SCIENTIST:
Put that down-it's a prototype.
We hear Barney fire the Tau cannon. It blasts through the wall where the player is walking.
BARNEY:
Man! Why aren't we using it?
SCIENTIST
It's much too unpredictable. Don't let it overcharge!
BARNEY:
What do you mean, overcharge?
There is an explosion and SCREAMS.
Pentagon armed? (Score:2)
That'd look kind of cool, actually, with a big ID4-style beam weapon projecting from a huge five-sided building.
Not terribly mobile, though.
...unless there is a mirror on the target. (Score:2)
DIY Version (Score:2)
War in 2080 (Score:2, Funny)
Wish I could remember who wrote that book.
I don't see why the US has a monopoly on lasers. (Score:2)
Sure, most of China's fabs were laid out by european contractors, but that
Warfare? (Score:2)
All in the name of eliminating Terrorism I assume. Man what a cash-cow.
How useful is this? (Score:2)
Though it'd be funny to see all our enemies running around in shiny foil suits like the ones seen the old sci-fi tv shows.
But what if the enemy.... (Score:3, Funny)
selling it (Score:2)
Sure. In the same way that checking drivers licenses at the airport will stop bad guys from boarding planes. No hype here, just good old facts.
Humvees? (Score:2)
I won't be impressed until they can mount them on sharks!
same old (Score:2)
Of course thats only slashdot. If you count star wars (not the fictional movies, but the fictional defense system), lasers have been on the virge of becoming a great weapon for about twenty years now. I.E. they have been in a state of vaporware for a period almost long enough to rival that of artificial intelligense.
Of course, if you look at star wa
Inside of an hour, any enemy wanting to defeat (Score:2)
Re:The ultimate defense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Line of Sight (Score:2)
Re:Gravity-free? (Score:2)
Re:Same old lies... (Score:2)
-Erwos
Re:Slashdot anti-slashdot redundant duplicate post (Score:2)
Re:Pansie I am? (Score:2)
If I saw a guy walking around firing a weapon at houses, I'd try to kill him as well.
I can think of many perfectly valid reason to kill someone.
Re:Pansie I am? (Score:2)
Gotta disagree with you there. Killing is not always wrong. It's always bad, but not always wrong. It is not wrong to kill in order to protect, if it is absolutely necessary***. People had to be killed in WWII to stop Hitler, in Yugoslavia to stop the ethnic cleansing there, and in several other cases. Self defense or the defense of loved ones is not morally wrong (once again, bad as in undesireable, but not wrong morally).
Granted, these are all times when we killing is needed to sto