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.

 

U.S. beam weapons almost ready for battle

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I get the feeling some of you are almost afraid of this technology (or upset?? complaining?).

War is bound to happen again, I like my way of life here in NA, i'd prefer we have the technology and not China or other strong nations.




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by porky1981
I get the feeling some of you are almost afraid of this technology (or upset?? complaining?).

War is bound to happen again, I like my way of life here in NA, i'd prefer we have the technology and not China or other strong nations.

Yeah I'm complaining. Good of you to notice.

Light should not used as a weapon, period.

Once you introduce beam-weapons, you introduce the obvious question: Is it okay for us to blind soldiers en masse?

Think about this scenario and please provide your opinion: On a future battlefield, at night, a flashing strobe descends toward the enemy. They all look up, focusing their eyes onto the object, and WHAMMO, a piercing brilliant light melts ALL their retinas at once. Instant, permenant blindness for the enemy. They surrender. Battle over. Problem solved.

Bullets and shrapnel are bad, yes, but when you take a person's eyes away from them, you may as well have tied them down and tortured them. This type of weapon (light-based) is an abomination of something which is life-giving (light). It will be used (eventually) to melt soldiers' eyes right in their sockets. This will be done under the banner of "being humane" since death is not technically involved.

Of course, war-weenies who only think about bigger and better (sacrificing their grandchildren to the god of war, IMO) will grunt in approval of Puff shooting laser beams instead of metal.

It sure does look cool, I'll admit... so long as you still have the power of sight.

Of course I'm not mentioning the moral rightness of melting humans entirely. That's not so good either, but personally, I think it'd be better to kill a person than to gouge their eyes out. As I recall, there used to be an old device you could buy (illegal now) which you slipped onto your thumb, and which had a thin, protruding needle-shape on the tip. When inserted directly into an opponent's eye socket (behind the eyeball, say in h2h combat) would neatly sever their optic nerve and cause the eyeball to be ejcted from the socket. This device had a name brand and everything. It was called "The Simpson Eyegouger" or something like that. Horrific, no?

Ask yourself if we should spend our time attacking China with truth, or with focused beams of light. I'd say this question will determine the future of Earth.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I dont see it as torture, would you rather have 30,000 dead or blind men? Thats a lot less lives you have to take. Seems like a good idea to me, police have already gone less than lethal for some situations, no the military has too. This is a big step in lowering deaths in combat.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
as for the progress of weapons and systems / platforms as they are becoming more advanced the rate of casulties is going to drop.

okay that is partly because of imbedded media and militairy don't want people to see civilian deaths or under there own soldiers.

this trend started on the just before the end of the vietnam war.

after that the gulf war's and the war in afghanistan is fought with precision weapons and better weapons.

that we see rissing casualties in iraq is not because of advanced tech but because of low tech roadsite bombs.

current wars are cleaner then them in the past . with beam technology you can have the help of light and other particals to detect and destroy hostile activity like roadside bombs and other explosives

you could target with out having major strike forces in a foreign nations.

only a weapon in space or on land with mirror in space even a zeppelin with beam technology could be used to take out enemies with out major casualties on both sides.you could target buildings were top leaders are and attack them on a time with less civilians around.

under grround targets can be penitrated and destroyed.
if osama is hidding in a cave or believe he is you can act quicklier . no time to send a drone or a plane. just the press of a button.

torra bora could have been taken out without nuclear fall out.

only several shots of partical or partical beam weapons. if dust or debri doesn't kill the head will do.

and what about desintegration weaponary , you shout and the attraction of matter loses intergration with eachother there for taking atoms interation with eachother and so no blood and bodies left only a heap of atoms with out a form like dust.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by porky1981
I get the feeling some of you are almost afraid of this technology (or upset?? complaining?).

War is bound to happen again, I like my way of life here in NA, i'd prefer we have the technology and not China or other strong nations.

Yeah I'm complaining. Good of you to notice.

Light should not used as a weapon, period.

Once you introduce beam-weapons, you introduce the obvious question: Is it okay for us to blind soldiers en masse?

Think about this scenario and please provide your opinion: On a future battlefield, at night, a flashing strobe descends toward the enemy. They all look up, focusing their eyes onto the object, and WHAMMO, a piercing brilliant light melts ALL their retinas at once. Instant, permenant blindness for the enemy. They surrender. Battle over. Problem solved.

Bullets and shrapnel are bad, yes, but when you take a person's eyes away from them, you may as well have tied them down and tortured them. This type of weapon (light-based) is an abomination of something which is life-giving (light). It will be used (eventually) to melt soldiers' eyes right in their sockets. This will be done under the banner of "being humane" since death is not technically involved.

Of course, war-weenies who only think about bigger and better (sacrificing their grandchildren to the god of war, IMO) will grunt in approval of Puff shooting laser beams instead of metal.

It sure does look cool, I'll admit... so long as you still have the power of sight.

Of course I'm not mentioning the moral rightness of melting humans entirely. That's not so good either, but personally, I think it'd be better to kill a person than to gouge their eyes out. As I recall, there used to be an old device you could buy (illegal now) which you slipped onto your thumb, and which had a thin, protruding needle-shape on the tip. When inserted directly into an opponent's eye socket (behind the eyeball, say in h2h combat) would neatly sever their optic nerve and cause the eyeball to be ejcted from the socket. This device had a name brand and everything. It was called "The Simpson Eyegouger" or something like that. Horrific, no?

Ask yourself if we should spend our time attacking China with truth, or with focused beams of light. I'd say this question will determine the future of Earth.


why is this shocking to you or unacceptable? That is war. Period. Do you think the enemy would feel the same way if it meant victory? Would they feel remorse? no.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   


porky1981 said:
why is this shocking to you or unacceptable? That is war. Period. Do you think the enemy would feel the same way if it meant victory? Would they feel remorse? no.

Yes, and I am obviously poking at people who love war and its implements. I am anti-war in case that wasn't clear. Nobody wants war except worshippers of Mars and those who profit from that worship.

Your simple response indicates you are a patriot who sees war as unavoidable. Is that right? I do respect patriotism. I don't think warfare or the support of it equates to patriotism, so we're probably stymied right there, as far as any discussion goes.

Personally I think war is fomented by the IMF and world bank (which were formed after the last great war, but which had no intention of ending warfare) and that these light-based weapons systems are simply a tumor growing off the body of the Military Industry Complex --which body President Eisenhower identified in his final speech in office. It's funny to me how many people don't know he said that. I liked Ike even tho' he is an enigma of sorts.

I believe that light/love are the same thing. Darkness is related to unhappiness. It is light which banishes darkness. Light comes from God. Light IS God, IMO. Well, that is to say that light is what humans are made of (since all matter is energy at rest) and I believe each of us is a part of God (Course in Miracles, Conversations w/ God, etc)

So there are two reasons I hate these weapons:

1: they use a Godly force (light) as a killing/maiming instrument.

2: the nature of that demonic technology will cause it to be used directly on humans (sure they'll just use it on tanks first, but just wait), and then it will be used simply against those humans' weakest points in regard to light (eyeballs).

I know veterans who are fully jacked-up due to war, and who are sorry they ever went. I know a vietnam vet who killed himself due to Agent Orange complications (leaving nine kids behind). I know a Marine who got his face bashed in with a rifle butt and has un-ending sinus/skull pain, ten years later. I am seeing myself being 40 down the road and maybe then I'll have combat veteran friends who have empty eyesockets or who are half-melted? If so, I'll be glad I wrote this post, at least.

Light should not be used as a weapon. It is an abomination.


[edit on 31-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
This weapon will be nice if they can get it to the battelfeild in time. I just hope that they do not put it to use say for crowd control or just to see it work on us.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
I dont see it as torture, would you rather have 30,000 dead or blind men? Thats a lot less lives you have to take. Seems like a good idea to me, police have already gone less than lethal for some situations, no the military has too. This is a big step in lowering deaths in combat.

This means that, considering how much collateral damage the US usually causes, the amount of blinded civilians will be enormous. blind people generate no income, which means that for every blind person, you will have to take care of during the occupation, for as long as they live. Ofcourse if you don't want your taxes not to be spent on that, you could refuse, but then you'd turn the entire country against you in no time due to excessive cruelty and inhumanity, as well as world opinion who would see YOU as terrorists, and justified.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by Simon666]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Yes, and I am obviously poking at people who love war and its implements. I am anti-war in case that wasn't clear. Nobody wants war except worshippers of Mars and those who profit from that worship.

Your simple response indicates you are a patriot who sees war as unavoidable. Is that right? I do respect patriotism. I don't think warfare or the support of it equates to patriotism, so we're probably stymied right there, as far as any discussion goes.

I'm a strong believer that war is not an activity to be engaged in lightly, though there are times, when through the actions of others, that war does become unavoidable. I believe it was George Wasington who said it better than I ever will, "Even the best of men cannot live in peace, if such does not suit his bad neighbor."

Your further arguments delved into religion, and searched for religious dogma on what technology is or is not acceptable when killing our fellow man. While I agree certain types of weapons (such as poisen gas) should not be used, there are more strictly tangible reasons for this than "Light comes from God. Light IS God."



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   


While I agree certain types of weapons (such as poisen gas) should not be used, there are more strictly tangible reasons for this than "Light comes from God. Light IS God."

Yes, I ranted a little there. Kind of rude of me to contribute to a thread which I then preach on.

Well anyway, I'm passionate about it. I have a weird pattern in my life of knowing what's going to happen. It's not prophecy or anything, but I feel like I am racing against evil. I can't explain it better than that. I don't mean to hijack this thread.

The argument is selective targetting, isn't it? That the makers of these weapons assuage themselves by saying A: It'll reduce collatoral damage, or B: the enemy will do it so we have to. I suppose both of those are reasonable declarations. But what's that saying about best intentions paving some road? I wonder if that really will remain the sphere of these weapons. I mean, is it wrong to discuss the ethical question here?

Picture a laser that is mounted on a humvee and which, with one swipe of the turret, you can slice thousands of troops down. A dialable hundred meter lightsaber, shooting straight outward. That's the kind of thing I see in my dreams. I see people being destroyed by light.

Again, no desire to hijack this fine thread about weaponry. I apologize for being so preachy. I think a lot about warfare and I admire the courage it takes to put ones body on the line. I am simultaneously empathetic toward our fighting men (who are often just kids really) in regards to what we ask them to DO, as well as what we ask them to ENDURE.

I think warfare can be throttled back in many ways. Indians were smarter, actually, because they rarely had massive wars. They'd trade a few warriors and booty, but there was still something honorable in it. What the hell is honorable in zapping a guy with a laser?

I think there needs to be a point where we draw the line. For me, this is it.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I'm not sure that the true understanding of how a beam weapon would revolutionize warfare has become apparent. Here is the basic difference, and it is key. With current technology, there is always some delay (short or long) between firing a weapon, its possible detection by a target and then the impact of the weapon striking a target. That delay always gives some chance for the target to evade or counter the weapon.

With a beam weapon, the energy travels close enough to the speed of light in a vacuum that the beam seems to instantaneously strike the target when fired. There is no time to react. No time to evade. When you realize the attack, it is already too late.

That is why I've said that conventional militaries trying to fight a U.S. military equiped with beam weapons could almost be like the ancient Greeks trying to fight a conventionally armed modern military.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps, permenant blindness for the enemy. They surrender. Battle over. Problem solved.



uh permenant? thse weapons have temporry effects, dont twist facts to suit your agenda that way.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by smallpeeps, permenant blindness for the enemy. They surrender. Battle over. Problem solved.



uh permenant? thse weapons have temporry effects, dont twist facts to suit your agenda that way.

Yes but how is that applied, exactly? I'm honestly asking. Is there a setting for how hot they get? Incapacitated by heat, or let's say flash-blindness, one is still quite stunned, from what I've read. When you get flash-blinded, it hurts like hell, and there is a borderline where blindness will ensue.

Now then, let's imagine generals considering beam weapons on the battle field. Do they want to wound or kill? It's an interesting question from a logistics perspective.

Let's discuss it.

As for agendas, we all have one, and it is hypocracy to pretend you do not. Why forbid yourself from having an agenda? It's fun.



[edit on 2-2-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
well, the degree of permanance dependes on a number of factors. Power of the original weapon, length of exposure, distance from target. The differance between flash blinding someone (blind for 5-10 seconds) and vaporising thier head is only a matter of power applied.

One more detail about beam weapons, while thier delivery to the target is near instantanious, they must remain on target for a period of time. Conventional munitions arrive over time, but have a near instantanious effect. Granted, atr any appriciable range, the delivery time quickly begins to outlast the 'kill ' time. In a short range firefight, building to building or room to room, both effects become near instantanious for conventional weapons. (thus making it unlikely we'll see the opening scenes from "Star Wars" any time soon)



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   


well, the degree of permanance dependes on a number of factors. Power of the original weapon, length of exposure, distance from target. The differance between flash blinding someone (blind for 5-10 seconds) and vaporising thier head is only a matter of power applied.

Yes, a number of factors. But really those factors have to be calculated by whom? It's the soldier firing, isn't it? Now is he going to take the same care when examining his distance to target versus desire to cook the target, etc? I'm not so sure he'll be as exact as when a SEAL does his calculation regard the amount of nitrogen in his blood. Calculating heat to throw onto another human is maybe less important to the person firing.

So there's no feedback in any way, right? So the soldier could have his beam weapon set on "defrost", but actually ending up affecting a "roast" setting because he didn't judge the situation right? I mean he won't know until he sees a few people go up in puffs of flame, right? Then he can say, "Whoa! Too high!" and dial it down, or something like that?

A gun has a lethal aspect to it. When you shoot a human, you are dealing death to them. The idea that these light-based weapons are somehow "less deadly" is silly to me. Less than lethal, to me, basically means "We can also use this weapon for domestic crowd control, in addition to killing." Call me paranoid.



One more detail about beam weapons, while thier delivery to the target is near instantanious, they must remain on target for a period of time. Conventional munitions arrive over time, but have a near instantanious effect. Granted, atr any appriciable range, the delivery time quickly begins to outlast the 'kill ' time. In a short range firefight, building to building or room to room, both effects become near instantanious for conventional weapons. (thus making it unlikely we'll see the opening scenes from "Star Wars" any time soon)

You've really thought this through. I'm impressed.

What's that part about keeping the beam on someone for a while? Like, a bullet hits quick, but a light beam (set on defrost) might just be used to disperse a crowd in a less-than-lethal way by holding it on them? They'd have to run away or risk a bad sunburn? Is that it, basically? That's still somewhat gruesome. I'm expecting lots of skin-sloughing and flashed-third degree burns. Ouch.

As for the Star Wars comment, it sounds crazy, but yes, that will happen. I've seen lasers that can cut through solid steel in one pop. I expect beam weapons will be used on wide-angle, and that humans hit with the light beam may actually pop like pieces of popcorn. When you heat a bag of water real quick, that kind of thing can happen.

Interesting conversation though. Let's talk more about how these weapons might be used on the battlefield. If the enemy is shooting bullets, you'll probably have the laser set on "broil", right? I mean it is being ported to replace a gatling cannon in the Spooky, so it'll be shooting at humans on the ground, and that laser's gonna be hot.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar

One more detail about beam weapons, while thier delivery to the target is near instantanious, they must remain on target for a period of time.


The demonstrations I've seen on the Discovery Channel, etc. show a beam being fired at a steel plate and "zap", there's a big hole in the plate. It all happens to quickly for the eye to really follow.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I'd assume the parameters for how long the pulse fires, and how intence the weapon's beam is would both be design level, so it'd be design engineers determining the difference between defrost and deepfry. The downside is the weapons would become slightly less effective at greater ranges. Which is only really a problem if your the soldier getting shot at and would prefer your return fire have a somewhat more permanamt effect.

This topic seems to be mostly focused on the lethal weapons, rather than crowd control devices, so I'll stick to that. Asking soldiers to control crowds by firing thier weapons into them is probrably not a great idea in the first place.

I suppose you're both right regarding the speed of a laser's effect. Whether you apply it in a slow burn or flash fry, the amount of heat or energy you're trying to impart on the target surface remains about the same, you've just got to build a more powerful beam weapon to do it in a shorter timeframe. 10 Kw for .1 seconds or 1Mw for .001 seconds. I doubt human bodies would explode from small apature weapons, as the entire body would need to be heated up. Larger apature weapons, however, could heat a signifigant portion of a human body more or less evenly.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I have not read into this topic much, but from a quick glance several ideas come to mind. 1. Where and what powers these weapons? 2. Less collateral damage?

Numero Dos seems appealing. That is exactly what we need to focus on.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
war is war, its never ment to be pretty. to me a few blind people doesnt sound that bad.

think about all the people without legs or arms because we decided to bomb 'em. think about the kids who even today walk on a mine and lose their leg because we wanted to use some mines.

and one thing some people seem to forget. there are gonna be different style of laser weapons. not only the ones giving the flash effect.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join