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.

 

Lethal Lasers vs. Hydrogen Bombs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Will potentially lethal laser weapons replace hydrogen bombs in the future? What date? Check out: www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8275

If a laser can blind you, it can kill you. How many people in history have been killed by lasers in war or by experiment?

Are lasers most effective by space, atmosphere, ground, underground, sea, or undersea?




posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Lasers are most effective in a non-atmospheric environment, such as space, because there are no particles, dust or otherwise, to diminish or block the beam. Laser communications were once tried out by U.S.N. submarines, but they quickly found out that the medium of water, and particularly saltwater, quickly causes a laser to 'fizzle out,' decreasing its range to around 1 (or so) mile.

A laser that is powerful enough to blind is not powerful enough to kill. Our eyes are by far the most delicate external feature of our body, and so that laser targets them.

The only lasers that could cut through flesh and industrial-grade steel cutters, but contrary to popular belief (i.e. James Bond movies) the laser must be pressed up against the surface it is to cut. Further than a few metres, and the effect it would have on you is negligible.

But why use a laser to hurt personnel? Surely there are much more vital things in an infrastructure, things that are much more susceptible to damage?



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
watch_the_rocks, I agree why "hurt the personnel." Hurting the infrastructure, when necessary, is an infinitely more kind policy.

I have a few ideas where lasers could be the most dangerous weapon, while also being the most peace-inducing technology.



new topics
 
0

log in

join