It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Sugarlump
War is never pretty and in the new century I suspect it will gain a horrific and flash boilling and exploding HELLISH aspect we couldn't imagine a century ago. However this is the eternal price of a divided humanity. As long as we fight each other we'll find new and more gruesome and horrific ways to kill each other.
Originally posted by Vinci
From what I know,
If you're pregnant and stand next to a microwave, there's a possibility your baby will become mutated. Now if you direct a lot of that energy at a human, if it wont fry them to crisp, they'll die soon from radiation and whatnot.
Originally posted by StalkerZERO
Question: Theres all sorts of ways directed energy could be used as a weapon......
But what about its power source? Until breakthroughs or rather declassification of certain breakthroughs in portable and very potent power sources becomes more common I doubt we'll see any mass produced "personal" directed energy weapons. That stupid "PHasr" gun looking thing isn't really a laser rifle when you think of it.
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. 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)
Originally posted by systemlord_
i like to think that advanced civilizations wouldn't prefer war instead of peace. i live in europe and i do feel that people here are intelligent and peaceful. i believe its due to good education system and the fact that we do have a freedom of speech.
the warmongers seem to be the US and the mid-east coalition
Originally posted by 25cents
ok, so 30k blind people or 30k dead people? i vote for the dead, for the obvious reason that they take up less resources. also, i agree that death is more humane than blindness - so now you've got 2 points on which i can agree with you.
..no offense, smallpeeps, but you're nuts. pacifism is a noble pursuit and all, but to expect any good out of it...human nature tends towards greed and vice. and the god talk ain't earnin you any points either, man. i think the closest you came to anything remotely sensical in your rambling was stating that light is very important to the universal structure (i'm putting that in my own words).
however, the weapons designs i've seen mentioned thus far have not been designed to cause permanent blindness - only incapacitory blindness for a short time frame. (incapacitory isn't a word, i know)
using satellite beam weapons mean that we can cut the head off any potential enemy without causing near as much collateral damage - and, coupling this with what i've read in the weapons forum about anti-matter and the science forum about zero-point energy - if applied correctly, we could soon have an extremely precise weapon with very little error with which to eliminate enemy leaders and munitions. without a head or arms, you don't have much of a threat. no threat, no fight - no fight, no damage. more powerful, precise weaponry that can be applied globally with minimal collateral damage (in the case of a focused beam directed at the cranium of future sadaam husseins, no collateral damage) equivocate to a more peaceful existence in which fewer people die for the egos of their leaders.
man, you're right. screw laser weapons - bring on the dirty nukes.