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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Since ww1 the rule has been economy of force not chivalry (aka how high you could jack the casualty ration in your favor)

Ordinarilly we'd try and achieve a sort of parity effect where the enemy could inflict at least a passing number of casualties against us.... however. At the end of the day we kicked israel off the battlefield laser project way late in the game for secret tech horse trading. At this point our only recourse is to develop a system that cuts burns and sears the enemy ten times as bad as what we gave the israelis. As to those who decry our stance of the enemy is developing it so we have to stance... try justifying this to families who lost children to your morals.....

Honestly since when has war been about morals...? it's always about flesh and bone and the most horrific forces either side can conjure. 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.




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

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.

Yeah, I agree with you, Sugarlump. You're describing my view: War sucks.

So then, what do you think could stop this hellish future? How could we solve the problem of "divided humanity", as you say? More correctly, how could we unite humanity, such that it wouldn't be divided again?

Do you see humanity as always divided, or is there a solution? Can unity (end of war) among humankind coming from the force of someone's military will (like Gen. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove), or would it conversely come from internal spiritual change in humanity, as a whole? You call War an effect which follows from the cause of "divided humanity", so please flesh out our understanding of this relationship. Would we all have to accept a certain religion, faith in Christ or something like that?

Personally I think your theory is in error, because war is not an entity, it is an act of will. And if enough humans regain their individual will, (ignore government propaganda) they will end war on their own. War, really is only "legalized killing". Civilians do not want war, and despite massive propaganda toward ongoing "defense", I think it's generally understood that one day, humanity will end warfare entirely out of disgust of it.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
War is hell. Nobody I know in the military or studies it wants war. The simple fact is that you might not have that discretion. You can try to avoid it at all costs, but there are costs for that attempt. War might be forced on you anyway, or if you are unprepared, you can be led like cattle into the gas chambers to your death when you don't put up a fight against the Hitlers, or Nazi's, or Communists or Terrorists or other evil doers in the world. You fail to acknowlege that the evil of war might not be initiated from our side. Sometimes Evil will fight you anyway regardless of your attempts, wheather you want to or not, and either you fight or you perish. That is reality.
The Cold War was such a fight, between two incompatable ideologically opposite camps, however we had the blessing of having "rational" players on both sides.

What if Iran, who has pledged to liquidate Israel, gets nuclear weapons and even knowing the result, uses them to accomplish this? These beam weapons might become real handy at that point, if we have them in place to counter such an attack. Radical fascistic ideologies and religions have no ration, no reason, and cannot be appealed to.

As opposed to war and fighting you may be, sometimes there are worse things than war. And any advantage either side can use to it's advantage, no matter how brutal it may seem, it will be justified by either because the alternative might be defeat and slaughter of your side.




[edit on 14-2-2006 by Sandman11]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
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. US is a highly advanced (well, for humans anyway) civilization just like the old world. but they also are a superpower and really the only country to actually be able to start wars at the moment.

but do they fight for their faith, does god command them to spread christianity and fight for it? i kind of doubt that.

how about the mid-east? i believe, since there exists no freedom of speech, most of the people do actually believe in what is told. also, the education in mid-east is not nothing to be proud about. in fact, they dont seem to worry about such things, maybe even considering information as the work of devils


it seems that these underdeveloped countries are going to be our problem as they are slowly starting to advance. they will go through same sort of revolutions that the western world did decades ago.

therefore, i see not bad in US forcing democracy upon those countries. its obvious that it wont work right away (like in iraq), but it will eventually. we must encourage them, even use force on 'em, to start the revolution. they may hate us, but its the price we got to pay. eventually, they will become more like us, more advanced, and less blinded by faith.

i cant predict how the things are going to work out, and in fact, noone does. but i certainly hope they will one day emrace the western type of society.

i cannot imagine an european style of advanced welfare states to get in war with each other. a pic of some holy profet cannot anger us to a level we would be ready to destroy entire countries.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I am no war hawk, I don't want to see my friends and family die in any conflict.
I also see the danger of being a Neville Chamberlain. Appeasment is no answer to evil, and only encourages it.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Had been in use for a long time. (Look for hard, angular, geometric shapes in the eyes of the storms.) Now, they're just ready to introduce them to you.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

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.


Don't worry about microwaves and pregnant ladies. As far as the varying energy of the electromagnetic spectrum goes, here is a part of it

Dangerous...Kinda Bad.............Nothin'................Less than nothin'

cosmic rays..............ultraviolet...................microwaves
.....gamma rays.....................visible light...........TV/FM/AM waves
....................x-rays..........................infrared

Pregnant women are instructed to not stand next to microwaves for the same reason that you aren't supposed to have your cell phone on when you pump gas. The cell phone / gas myth was actually a hoax made up by someone to sue a gas station, but from then on, in EVERY single owner's manual for cell phones, it will tell you not to pump gas with your phone - all for the sake of liability.

The pregnant lady / microwave myth comes from something similar, and so, for liability reasons, the myth lives on.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

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.

Fair question.

What makes you say that the light generating element must be part of the "rifle" part? What about a backpack that uses fiber-optics to transmit the effect beam? Note that earlier I described a patent I read which uses an ultraviolet beam (non-heated) as a vehicle for an electrical charge, that travels along the beam of light. The lethality of the electrical charge can be tuned, of course.

So you don't need some micro-fusion plant in the handle, you just need a way to project light. Fiber optics can bend light.

Open question to all:

What would be the best way to beat a beam weapon? Would it be possible to easily reflect the beam back? Also, wouldn't there be an eyesight-danger for all units who operate such gear? Flash blindness is more likely, particularly if something very shiny happens to redirect a part of their lethal beam.

Hmm. I am reading about people who got caught in volcanic paraclastic clouds and their brains boilt so quick their heads popped open. Yes, that's the kind of thing beam or wave-mechanics weapons are good for. Direct and quick application of hotness.

Also, you need to think bigger. Sure there'll be beam units for soldiers. It won't be like in Star Trek tho'. That had nothing to do with hand to hand combat. Beam weapons will be used from miles away, and like I said: They will be used against your weakest points: Eyeballs, skull, face.

Can't you people see what you are building? Wouldn't you rather take a step back? Cavemen probably did a good thing by discovering fire. We are told that we needed to split the atom to keep peacefulness on Earth. Now they want to use the power of lasers (harnessed light itself) to melt flesh?

There has to be a point where you say, "As a human, I object." ...I have read about these weapons, and I say they are the essence of evil, providing no ancillary value to humankind. Fission activities can also be used peacefully. What value does a beam weapon have in a peaceful world?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
That's not a new thing, even Boeing has declared it has developed a one megawat laser that can be used to destroy missiles and such:

www.boeing.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:27 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. 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)


And that's really what you think will happen? Have you thought it through or is it just wishfull thinking?
"Yes we have these new instantanious weapons of destruction, but we're gonna set it to medium so we'll have to wait a bit for our target to warm up".

Yes, that's exactly what an army will do, play fair.


You are a perfect example of why weapons should be banned rather sooner than later. You fail to see the obvious problems. I say good job to the free media for portraying a war like it is, without any blood or suffering!




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

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


Only 2 World Wars in all of human history and they were both started by " intelligent and peaceful" Europeans


The US warmongers started neither just helped end them



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
...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).

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.

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.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

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.


Yes, they are making new weapons to be more humane. Actually they're filantropist, we just don't see it.

Don't you realize every time you make a statement it's based on nothing but fear? "They're coming for us, we'll better be ready and look we're so humane building less lethal weapons"
They are not less lethal weapons, they are capable of that, but that's not what they'll use them for in a war, or wait, maybe they will to put the captured people in one of their new detainee camps. Yes, problem solved, we saved a live and provided them with a roof above their head and food, as long as they work a little for us, that's honest right? Better than what they had in their country!

And while you laugh and tell me how funny this statement is it is happening right under your nose, but as long as you're being told that there's an imminent threat, nobody will care.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
i'm not being told there's an imminent threat, i'm seeing it. bush is pissing all over the worlds leg, and it's only a matter of time.

and i'm not basing any statements out of fear - you think this is indicative of any kind of fear?



it'll all come to a head one of these days, and those with the best wepons will be the ones on top.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by 25cents]

[edit on 9-3-2006 by 25cents]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Is that your Tattoo 25cent?

I like the coloring on the mushroom cloud

If it is yours is that a calf or forearm
I cant really tell



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
right calf. hell, if i had forearms like that....

and i wanted a sepia coloration like it was an old photo. ink bomb tattoo in...chandler? AZ. they do awesome work.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   


..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).

"Human nature tends toward greed and vice." No wonder you sound lost. If that's what you believe, then really there's no point in us conversing.

Isn't it interesting how simply you define the word "human", 25cents?

In fact, modern humans are very different than humans who lived even 200 or 300 years ago. They knew only slavery, they weren't literate, etc.

In fact, modern humans are more connected to one another in ways that our ancestors would have never dreamed. When even just 1/85,000th of the human race suffers (70,000 dead in pacific tsumani) ALL of humanity grieves. Earth is connected now, due to the age of electronics. Modern man is different and is tuned in to different elements of his mind.

Why not tell us more about your opinions of humanity and how greedy and horrible humanity is toward itself, so I can provide you with a 3 to 1 ratio of how much people can actually empathize MORE and care for each other instead?

Oh, and I'm not earning points by talking about God-as-light. There are lots others who believe this on ATS. One of them has his own forum.



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)

What is the difference between incapacitory blindness and permanent? Isn't it A: a temperature setting, or B: a duration setting? So my point is that these weapons may be marketed in one way, but they can be used in other, hidden ways. Get it yet? I'm trying not to ramble, but let me rephrase it: If I build a "flash-blinding" weapon, and mount it on my humvee, but I am facing "the enemy", I may decide to dial it up so that I will not face those particular enemy ever again.

So the point is that when one throws light at the enemy, it can be easily modulated or adjusted so as to affect any number of trauma to humans. Yeah, I might sound a little preachy here, but I think soldiers are generally good people, on BOTH sides of a war, and they deserve better treatment than this.



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.

That's gotta be some of the lamest reasoning I've ever read. "A space-based super laser which can selectively kill anyone will provide a more peaceful world?" --Did I read that correctly?



man, you're right. screw laser weapons - bring on the dirty nukes.

Uh, are you making some point about how dirty bombs are much worse, and that space-lasers will bring peace?

You did read what I wrote about Ike and what he said about the Military Industrial Complex, right? You think that it does not exist, and is not a threat to peace? Please tell us more.

I am really looking forward to replying, if this is what you are saying. But I wanted to clarify first.


[edit on 9-3-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
are you telling me a world in which nations, CAPITALIST nations proliferate and those who come to power are the same who rip through every person on the way up that ladder is a world in which the inhabitants are peaceful and selfless by nature? a world in which tyrannies and -ism's exist? yeah, ok, i'll admit that many people donated money to the tsunami affected countries - that's a 100% valid statement. the united states gave money, as did many of the countries in the UN.

did you?

did anyone you know?

my point is this - if we were to abolish government and all form of restriction on every human being, are you telling me that the majority of people would be out on a search and destroy mission for those with valuables they could obtain?

people may give to a cause, and some may even feel as if it's the only option available to them i'm not saying there aren't good people. what i'm saying is is that most of the people who make such contributions do so, and then turn around and continue with their selfish lifestyles.


and i'm not saying i'm above this.


human nature IS selfish - we're born to survive at any cost. i'm telling you right now that your life is far less important than mine to me, and that someone thousands and thousands of miles away is less important than you to me because you're american - not from a nationalistic point of view, but from a philisophical point of view. personal diatribe there, but that's what this little debate is all about, yeah?


now, as far as the god is light thing, one must first be convinced that there is a god. after this post, i'm making another to invite criticism of a theory i have...gravity and light are both unexplainable in our universe, and gravity is the topic i'm covering, so....if indeed there is a god, the existence of such a being or idea would be so far beyond us as to be unthinkable beyond the concept 'god'. i have this argument with myself all the time - it's IMPOSSIBLE to know what created the universe, as well as for what purpose. i have my own theories, but being agnostic i give myself very little serious acknowledgement on that sort of matter.

and yes, i said space lasers, dammit - it was mentioned earlier in this thread that sattelites have been used to shoot lasers and shoot targets with an accuracy of that smaller than a dime. it's viable.




now on to where i can admit defeat - i know nothing of this eisenhower stuff you speak of. if you copuld link me to the pertinent articles and allow me to do my own research from there, i'll gladly get back to you on the matter. as it stands, i don't know what you're talking about.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I wounder what will happen if the enemy is equipped with mirrior like shield......




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join