The United States Deploys Combat LASER To Persian Gulf - The New Cold War Goes Full On Dystopian.

reply to post by Hefficide


You'd might like the new GI JOE movie Cobra rids the worlds of nukes!!!

Just replaced them with kinetic kill rods.

reply to post by neo96


Meh... Pandoras box is opened. Doesn't mean I have to like it though. If I were Emperor of the world, the weapons of war would be made of Nerf. Not because I am a hippie who hates violence and death. Quite to the contrary - killing someone with Nerf would be much more emotionally satisfying AND safer to bystanders.

reply to post by Hefficide

Exactly what aspect of my disdain for weapons of mass destruction strikes you as unpatriotic??? I was pretty sure that loving America and hating the death of every living human being on Earth was OK.

The part that robs my country of the ability to deter aggression from EVERYONE IN THE WORLD!

I’m in favor of technology on the battlefield….as long as its effective.

Instead of people bitching about it we should applaud the fact that our tax dollars are going toward a means of life preservation for good guys! Sure, the people on the wrong end of these weapons will die in drove but isn’t that the point??

Weapons are necessary for self-preservation. We can discuss the US’s use of weapons and force, and the merits of those actions, but as far as the ability to wage war is concerned I’d like to maintain the upper hand.

reply to post by Hefficide


When you think about it, we've been using the idea of a metal projectile propelled from a gun for quite a long time. You would think that type of a technology would have been shelved in a museum a long time ago.

Much of the laser research in this area has died off. It died off because of the continuing development of the particle beam type weapons which are much more potent. Particle beam development stopped being reported several years ago, it just sort of petered out, like, oh, it was classified or something.

We know that China seems to be able to acquire plans for US defense equipment by just snapping their fingers. Just look at aircraft development for some glaring examples.

Energy weapons, at this point in time, require large power supplies and that generally confines them to Warships and ground based systems.

This in turn means they are defensive in nature. They are not yet a battle field weapon as such, nor are they mobile unless you have one hell of an extension lead.

It is quite possible that either China or Russia have these systems and since they are defensive they may see no problem at giving NK a defensive battery or two or three and NK can mount them at high altitude.

The possibility exists that NK could be soon sending B2s to the spirit world. That would change the entire situation. Is it likely, who knows.

What these weapons provide is a very good defensive capability and all countries tend to want a good defense.

P

reply to post by seabag


I have no argument at all with that - other than a possible debate about just how corrupt the defence contracting and spending thing is. IE the earlier reference to $800.00 toilet seats. IMO defence contractors and big Pharma are two of the biggest vacuums when it comes to waste and fraud.

But other than that I agree. A strong and dominant military is a benefit to America.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


So can we trade in our firearms for one of these ? I want one !

reply to post by Hefficide

This is a direct statement to other governments. A display of power ( or at least the display of potential power ).

I think it's a smoke screen showing a yawner prototype to the world to lull them into a sense of "that's all ya got?, when the really dangerous toys that are fully functional are being hidden, waiting for release on CNN's coverage of the next major conflict.

Oh, and your personality is not potentially annoying, Heff

Originally posted by Bedlam
Unless this ship is attacked by people in hang gliders or a squadron of Cessna single prop passenger planes, I don't see it as a more efficient way to kill people. It's an experimental CIWS adjunct.

Wow, is that all you want to comment on lol.

OK strike efficient then. Leave the 'cheaper way to kill people'. But regardless that really wasn't my point, which you seemed to have missed.

I'm guessing you wouldn't want people to really have a choice, because I think if they did their money would not be spent on new toys to intimidate the "enemy" (whomever that is this week).

reply to post by Hefficide

IMO defence contractors and big Pharma are two of the biggest vacuums when it comes to waste and fraud.

But other than that I agree. A strong and dominant military is a benefit to America.

In all fairness, your OP was a rebuke of WMD in the hands of US.

I’m confused…please elaborate because I agree with your sentiments above.

Originally posted by WeRpeons

When you think about it, we've been using the idea of a metal projectile propelled from a gun for quite a long time. You would think that type of a technology when have been shelved in a museum a long time ago.

Shame we have to have a replacement for that to happen eh?

reply to post by Hefficide


When that box(nuclear) was opened other things that came with it: the means of ending a bloody war, nuclear medicine, and the means to feed,and cloth millions

Just depends on how people look at it also Laser technology has been used for other things for the last 30 years as well.

Some day them "evil" lasers just might save the world from Nirbu.

reply to post by seabag


I disagree with this. It was not a rebuke of American military might at all. It was a statement about poor diplomatic policy if anything. However the main topic was intended to be the first ever deployment of a potentially game changing weapon to an active "hot zone". Any personal inclusions were simply that - personal opinion.

I was born on a military base to military parents and tried like Hell to serve myself - even though I'd had open heart surgery. I have nothing but respect for the US Military and those who serve.

What I don't have a lot of love for is the politicians who seem to often use the military inappropriately. IE questioning the logic of provoking an already inflamed situation. That, IMO is very dialogue worthy as an aspect of this cutting edge weaponry and its deployment.

reply to post by Hefficide


Sorry to burst the bubble, but i feel you are over-sensationalising this entire concept. this laser has been around for a while, in testing phase...and its no where near as awesome as star wars or star trek.....emitting an invisible beam of conentrated heat not much different from using a magnifying glass under the sun.

Theres no phased pulsed array of red beams flying anywhere and it looks more like a space telescope than a weapon.

its an invisible beam.....imagine an invisible light sabre...hardly exciting to see now is it?

reply to post by ISeekTruth101


I honestly don't care how flashy it is... Efficacy doesn't require a red pulsing light. The fact that it has been deployed to a hot zone, IMO, is not hyperbole at all.

Any Star Wars / Star Trek references were simply pop-culture color commentary to try and create an inclusionary environment for the members here who don't have a great interest in weaponry.

reply to post by neo96


You have a valid point...these lasers may indeed one day save us from nibriu.

Short story: growing up in Germany, I only had access to AFN...armed forces network. It was the only English speaking TV programming at the time. And it was military operated. As such, they were not allowed to air commercials....so they filled in those gaps between shows with various infomercials of a military nature. They were terribly done, crude and often goofy as any military person will tell you....but as kids desperate to watch american tv we endured them.

There was one that always reminded us about all the different common everyday things that were developed because of military technology. That is what ran through my head when I read your post!

End nostalgia.

reply to post by Mijamija


Wanna know what ran through my mind as I wrote that?

The laser in my blueray player on my pc.military just has a more powerful one.

reply to post by Hefficide

I disagree with this. It was not a rebuke of American military might at all. It was a statement about poor diplomatic policy if anything. However the main topic was intended to be the first ever deployment of a potentially game changing weapon to an active "hot zone". Any personal inclusions were simply that - personal opinion.

The OP was about the US and it’s weapons….sorry, I’m just telling you how it came across to the reader…at least THIS reader. The OP wasn’t about North Korea’s REAL THREAT…or the REAL THREAT posed by regimes like Assad or the loose nukes in Pakistan under terrorist control or the nuke threat in South America!!

Last time I checked a LASER points and kills directly rather than indiscriminately on a mass scale.

I was born on a military base to military parents and tried like Hell to serve myself - even though I'd had open heart surgery. I have nothing but respect for the US Military and those who serve.

OK…that doesn’t make your post history have a patriotic flavor.

Just saying!

What I don't have a lot of love for is the politicians who seem to often use the military inappropriately. IE questioning the logic of provoking an already inflamed situation. That, IMO is very dialogue worthy as an aspect of this cutting edge weaponry and its deployment.

I don’t question that scenario…we don’t have all the intel the shot callers have either. Some times you have to rattle the sabre back at them.

I question their bottom-line motives but I don’t take issue with the actions in NK so far. I’m a little disappointed in the actions in Iran and Syria so far….but then again I’m impatient.

reply to post by Hefficide


Sorry I forgot the real worries aren't nukes, or lasers the thing that should make people worry is cyber warfare it has the most destructive potential of anything man has ever created.

At the push of a button real destruction can reign down on people that has the capacity to kill millions in an instant, the worse part?

No one can see it coming.

reply to post by Hefficide


Firearms leveled the playing field a great deal.

Prior to firearms it took years and years to learn how to wield a sword or fire an arrow. Some were naturally better at it than other due to strength, speed or coordination. Training played a huge part.

Firearms simply meant that a lot less training was required and a larger pool of people could be useful in the field. Watch the movie 'The Last Samurai" to get a feel for that change.

Firearms are easier but you still need to take into account things like gravity / wind drift / leading / recoil and many other factors.

Energy weapons would be a dramatic change on the battle field. Aim and fire. No drop over distance / no wind drift / no leading the target and no recoil. Aim, fire, target goes down. So easy a child could do it and do it well. So could mum and aunt Mabel.

Scary thought for the first world nations that rely on high tech. Aim a particle beam at a helicopter or a fighter and they are toast. I don't think we are there yet with taking out tanks but a few beam strikes and you could rob them of their reactive armor.

P