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.

 

Kinetic strike

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
www.nbcnews.com...

The link provided discusses the death of some terrorist. I'm not particularly interested in that.
What does pique my interest is the reported manner of his death.

He was killed by what the article calls a kinetic strike. My science fiction nerd brain kicked in and immediately thought of an orbital bombardment or "rod from God". I assumed that I was mistaken and did a quick search of the term kinetic strike. I was immediately linked to articles about tungsten rods from space and various concepts for orbital attacks using the sheer velocity of the object to impart damage.

Am I off base? Is the U.S. Using kinetic impacts from space as a weapon? My understanding of current space weapons treaties tells me that this sort of weapon would not be illegal, but the actual implementation of such a device would be a game changer.

I guess I'm hoping that my fellow ATS'ers can show me how I'm misunderstanding the term, or the article itself.




posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Pretty sure it's just a fancy way of saying "lethal force."

It's been used several times over the last decade or so to refer to operations where, to put it bluntly, the endgame is killing somebody.

Your idea isn't "wrong" per se, so much as it is just not the "right" definition for this instance.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-7-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Midnight4444

It is a military term and means a moving strike operation upon a target going to where the target is as opposed to waiting for the target in ambush. The purported operation that targeted Bin Laden at his compound was a kinetic strike.

Sorry to ruin your imaginative musings of there being some new kind of sci fi weapon, but it is just a mundane operational term.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Thanks!

I guess I'm pleased and disappointed at the same time.

I appreciate the education on the use of the term.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Well I kind of took it as even a bullet...

I mean, isn't a bullet a kinetic kill?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Double speak at it's finest.


Kinetic means "relating to, or resulting from motion"; strike means "a sudden attack, typically a military one."

Kinetic strike means "an attack done in movement," which is the opposite of, for example, a group of militaries waiting for the arrival of the enemy, hidden.


Here's a pretty good break down of the terminology and it's origin within military usage:


www.slate.com...

Birth of a Washington Word

"Retronym" is a word coined by Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern's campaign director, to delineate previously unnecessary distinctions. Examples include "acoustic guitar," "analog watch," "natural turf," "two-parent family," and "offline publication." Bob Woodward's new book, Bush at War, introduces a new Washington retronym: "kinetic" warfare.

In common usage, "kinetic" is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, "active, as opposed to latent." Dropping bombs and shooting bullets—you know, killing people—is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy's communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are "non-kinetic."



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Midnight4444

You're very welcome. I'm sure lots of new weaponry is being designed as we speak and you shall not be disappointed. I dread to think what technological beasties will be unleashed on the battlefields of the future.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Sorta.

It doesn't have to be a bunch of guys on a helo launching on a target. Pretty much anything that involves using arms to kill somebody, as opposed to the use of less lethal actions, can be called kinetic warfare.

It's a cool sounding way of saying "we dropped a couple of JDAMs on that dude and POOF"



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9
Hop & Pop.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well I kind of took it as even a bullet...

I mean, isn't a bullet a kinetic kill?


I would suggest shrapnel also, which could obviously also kill the terrorist.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Midnight4444
www.nbcnews.com...

The link provided discusses the death of some terrorist. I'm not particularly interested in that.
What does pique my interest is the reported manner of his death.

He was killed by what the article calls a kinetic strike. My science fiction nerd brain kicked in and immediately thought of an orbital bombardment or "rod from God". I assumed that I was mistaken and did a quick search of the term kinetic strike. I was immediately linked to articles about tungsten rods from space and various concepts for orbital attacks using the sheer velocity of the object to impart damage.

Am I off base? Is the U.S. Using kinetic impacts from space as a weapon? My understanding of current space weapons treaties tells me that this sort of weapon would not be illegal, but the actual implementation of such a device would be a game changer.

I guess I'm hoping that my fellow ATS'ers can show me how I'm misunderstanding the term, or the article itself.

I think the weapon you are talking about was called Thor's hammer. Also no we are not using them because they would strike with the force of a nuclear explosion that's kind of hard to cover up.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

If there is no radiation, you can throw your hands up and claim asteroid. But I agree that they would not post it in a news article.

Besides, with the appropriate math and materials, I'm sure you could keep the impact fairly moderate.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Sorry OP that would have been cool.

I honestly believe real kinetic weapons in space are the future. Terrifying really, imagine our world leaders able to unleash that kind of destruction without the radiation aftermath.

Also, think if they made ultra compact ones as well.
Awesome



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
It's the 00's term for "direct action", more or less.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
My understanding is you can not put a kinetic weapon in orbit.

But suborbital is ok.

Equal to a nuclear explosion? my understanding is the smallest nuclear weapon ever built had a yield between 10 and 20 tons of TNT.

The 1947 texas city SS Grandcamp cargo of approximately 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate was a lot bigger blast.
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Lawn darts from space!



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well I kind of took it as even a bullet...

I mean, isn't a bullet a kinetic kill?


I would suggest shrapnel also, which could obviously also kill the terrorist.


Or how bout a hammer to the head? Does that count?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well I kind of took it as even a bullet...

I mean, isn't a bullet a kinetic kill?


I would suggest shrapnel also, which could obviously also kill the terrorist.


Or how bout a hammer to the head? Does that count?


Im thinking a"boot to the head" lol.....and one for jenny and the wimp.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I think it's the 00's term for "aerial bombardment."

And speaking of aerial bombardment, the supposed rods from god are a poor idea. Turns out that the effects just don't get bigger after a certain point (no better and often worse than penetrating high explosive bombs today), but the costs are extremely high.

Simply put, too innaccurate, and too expensive, and too weak.

You can see youtube vids on what happens when ICBM re-entry vehicles hit on Kwajalein. Consider how expensive and fast they are, and yet, a 500 lb bomb gives more boom.

Speaking of south pacific accidents, that, uh, Light From God, on the other hand.... sounds like it's the business, tom?

A question: could you modulate an audio signal on it? Would it couple atmospherically? And if it did, what might you say? What would it sound like?


edit on 26-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Midnight4444

Yes I have been struck down by some electronic weapon at a protest you are in incredible pain and cant move for a very long time,it looks as if 15 years on they've progressed from non-lethal to lethal.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join