It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Navy deploys laser weapon system that’s fired with ‘video game-like controller’

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by okamitengu
 


Just pointing out that both our nations required the help of the other to triumph in WW1 and WW2. We required help in Europe just as much as the Americans did in the Pacific theatre and vice versa.

After all was it not a team effort even if our generals did not see eye to eye?

edit on 11-4-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


The problem is the air, and the many things floating in the air.

Smoke, fog, clouds, dust, bugs, anything in the lasers path can make the laser non-lethal. Even just high winds, and lots of air turbulence will disrupt a laser. It has always been the biggest hurdle for weaponized lasers, and will always be the problem.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Definately not a fast acting weapon.

Look how long it takes to burn a drone.

How is it going to deal with 5 or 10 or 20 missiles fired at it at Mach speeds?

They're wasting their money if this is just for use against drones and boats.

They already scrapped the airbourne lasers for this reason. Too costly and impractical.


edit on 11-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by okamitengu
 


Did you forget about who ended the war...by dropping this little firecracker?



Yeah, no big deal.
We just came in to claim the glory though.....
not like we were attacked at Pearl Harbor or anything to provoke it either.
edit on 11-4-2014 by parad0x122 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by parad0x122
 


Just remember the scientists that came up with the atomic bombs were also of European descent not just American.


The Atomic bomb was a group effort im afraid and in hindsight probobly not something to be proud of.


Japan was already beaten and had no air defence capabilities against our bombers(B-29s). America could have sat back and used conventional incendiary bombs there citys were made of wood!

The Nukes were simply to deter Russia me thinks. Right or wrong i dont know, i will say its not a something i would be proud of!

edit on 11-4-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

parad0x122
reply to post by okamitengu
 


Did you forget about who ended the war...by dropping this little firecracker?



Yeah, no big deal.
We just came in to claim the glory though.....
not like we were attacked at Pearl Harbor or anything to provoke it either.
edit on 11-4-2014 by parad0x122 because: (no reason given)


Yeah how can we forget, don't worry we will NEVER forget which country fired Nuclear weapons FIRST, in ANGER, TWICE.

Ironically, the US and UK are BREACHING the Non-proliferation Treaty by sharing Nuclear weapons technology. This is in the news currently since the UK is using them on their Trident missile system.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Absolutely, I'm not in the LEAST bit proud that we were the first and only people to drop nukes.
Twice.
But to even suggest that the US wasn't a significant part of the war is, for lack of better words, pretty ignorant.
Clearly the effort put forth was a joint effort by all involved.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

parad0x122
Absolutely, I'm not in the LEAST bit proud that we were the first and only people to drop nukes.
Twice.
But to even suggest that the US wasn't a significant part of the war is, for lack of better words, pretty ignorant.
Clearly the effort put forth was a joint effort by all involved.


Oh no, not at all I am not stating you played no part in the wars at all, in fact, America had a big hand in every war that I have read about pretty much.

It is more difficult to think of what you DIDN'T have a hand in.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

pookle

It is more difficult to think of what you DIDN'T have a hand in.



First off, I was referring to this previous post, not yours.


okamitengu
First World War 1914–18
us involvement 1917-18

so.. just turned up at the end to claim credit??

Second World War, 1939–45
us joined in 1941... december....
so late to the party again.

Dday, storm only one beach. claim the whole war was won by them alone....



Secondly, I can't help but sense a certain malicious tone in your words, as if I or any other Americans on this forum had anything to do with the decisions that were made that led up to those events.

Relax, there's no need to get all defensive.
edit on 11-4-2014 by parad0x122 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pookle
 


There are a lot of conflicts the US had no part in.


This map shows countries (in white) that England has never invaded. There are only 22 of them.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by pookle
 


There are a lot of conflicts the US had no part in.


This map shows countries (in white) that England has never invaded. There are only 22 of them.


Don't make me get a map of US bases or NATO for that matter.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Russia already testing ICBM ' with laser resistant materials. If these are long range they will make mince meat out of any enemy aircraft that are detectable at range. They should developed a CV-22 like aircraft that can quickly fly too and deploy these anywhere the plane can land to provide instant defenses for troops, cities etc...to make them quickly deplorable in a mobile war environment. Aside from creating a power source powerful enough installed on this flying mobile laser they should also design it so it can hook up to any ground power sources available such as generators or even a house plug in to supplement on board power to conserve the aircraft fuel while landed and operating..
edit on 11-4-2014 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pookle
 


How about you getting a map of countries the US has invaded or would that not work to your advantage.

There is a big difference between being invited to a country and invading a country.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by pookle
 


How about you getting a map of countries the US has invaded or would that not work to your advantage.

There is a big difference between being invited to a country and invading a country.


You may be invited by some politican, but that does not automatically mean you are welcomed by the populus on the street.

As you say, Big Difference.

edit on 11-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It's such a shame about this weapon, which in my opinion is a flagrant waste of money.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Does anyone know why this story always comes out in early April?

www.wired.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
As others noted this is an awesome weapon for ending the threat posed by nuclear missiles. But I wonder if it now means a missile defense system could be deployed at sea, without all the diplomatic problems posed by land sites? Then again, I suppose a shield could already be built at sea using existing technology.
Overall it's something I fully approve, believe is well worthy of investment, and am glad the U.S has.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
then the mirror jets will be made to counter the laser!



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


I was reading this article and remembered reading about US navy trials of an electromagnetic rail gun reported, and i say that loosely, on the Daily Mail website. Here is the link to the article. Apologies if it has been posted before:

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by parad0x122
 


Did n't the Tokyo fire raids kill more people than both atomic bombs?




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join