Precision engagement of a PID [Positively Identified] insurgent by a DEW [Directed Energy Weapon] will be a highly surgical and impressively violent event. Target effects will include instantaneous burst-combustion of insurgent clothing, a rapid death through violent trauma, and more probably a morbid combination of both. It is estimated that the aftermath of a sub-second engagement by PASDEW [Precision Airborne Standoff Directed Energy Weapon] will also be an observable event leaving an impression of terrifyingly precise CF [Coalition Force] attribution in the minds of all witnesses.
Last edited by solicitr on Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tosh, there's no 'fair' in warfare. The whole idea, as Maj Max Johnson USMC once put it to us, is to make things "as completely f***ing unfair as possible."
This is a point that the Brits of all people should be sensitive to, since HM Forces have taken unnecessary casualties as a result of a cheeseparing Government's having sent them into harm's way with insufficient numbers and, especially, inadequate and outdated kit.
----------------
Of the two principal advantages of this laser system, one can in fact be viewed as anti-violent: unlike explosive or kinetic ordnance, there is essentially no collateral damage produced.
In my opinion this thread is entirely non-responsive and unproductive in construction.
I believe that this is a topic that could be productively discussed here, but not in the way it has been presented, as just a link, a quote, and an inflammatory thread title. I can imagine the exact same first post, but with the thread title, "Future American War-crimes" or something similar, and it would be just as inflammatory, but from the opposite direction.
It appears to me that this thread is merely bait for those who would find such a weapon distasteful or immoral, a lure into a pointless ideological quarrel.
Why bring this up at all? That is not meant as a rhetorical question. I would like to know why this is an important topic to discuss. Your first post does not answer the question, and it should.
Tosh didn't say anything about fairness in his reply. Why do you react as if he did? The description of the weapon you quoted certainly comes close to being a pornographic description of violence.
Well said, Faramond. If a satisfactory answer is not forthcoming, I will lock this thread.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I'm having trouble getting through the balky server.
Second attempt:
I'm rather nonplussed as to why a new thread with a link to a breakthrough energy technology is 'constructive,' but a new thread with a link to a breakthrough military technology is 'inflammatory.' We happen to be in a war in Afghanistan, a cleanup operation in Iraq, confronted with renewed Russian aggression, and have Iran on the horizon. Should we not be advancing our military tech? Throughout history, and exponentially in modern times, victory on the battlefield is a function of more advanced weaponry.
The description of anticipated weapon effects (from the DoD request application) is derided as 'violence porn.' I reject the name. If the effect is horrific and terrifying, it's because weapons are *supposed* to be horrific and terrifying. The essence of military operations is the degradation of the enemy's morale (used technically, a rough definition is "will to fight."). As Napoleon observed, "a battle is nothing more than two large groups of men trying to frighten one another." The means, of course, is intimidation through violence.
I can think of few systems better suited to this task, especially against jihadis, than one which can incinerate a leader out of nowhere like Zeus' thunderbolt, leaving those around him untouched.
It is not the subject that is inflammatory, it is the way you present it. Why isn't what you said in your latest post in the first post? Instead the first post is a link, a horrifying description of what the weapon does, and a title that dares someone to disagree that the weapon is something other than a fine exemplar of American ingenuity. There is no context given to the description, which you give later.
edit:
I doubt I've explained myself very well. There is not any one element that I find inflammatory. It's the overall effect, the juxtuposition of the bare description with the title you chose. "Good old American know how" is not inflammatory by itself, of course. Personally I am in favor of it and proud of it. But when it's combined with a description of a new weapon that may lead to ethical questions then it does tend to polarize the discussion right away. I am not trying to say that there is anything wrong with arguing in favor of this weapon.
Last edited by Faramond on Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am going to be posting the new guidelines for this forum within the next day, which I hope will help eliminate this kind of thing, which stifles rather than promotes the kind of measured discourse that we are looking for.
solicitr, perhaps you could edit the thread title to something more descriptive of the subject of the thread.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
It's interesting that you read it that way, Far, which was not my intenet. I do think that this is a fine exemplar of American ingenuity, just like laser targeting and GPS. I guess I should have reckoned some here might doubt that.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Although this has been an Air Force development project, I can see a very fruitful naval application in cruise-missile defense: unlike the Vulcan/Phalanx CIWS, which only engages at the relatively pokey speed of gunfire, the engagement time of a laser weapon would be at the speed of light: effectively instantaneous.
I think the bit where they describe the target's clothes catching fire was a bit much. Or maybe my imagination is a little too good - I know lasers burn and I know what burns look like. Bleah.
Er, what's the wavelength? IR?
ETA:
The injury might resemble a lightning strike more than anything else.
Except lightening strikes usually come with a storm system. Just sayin'...
The site has been down for me for much of the day but this was my earlier response before the discussion moved on.
I am realistic enough to know that force (and intelligence and sometimes restraint) are needed on a battlefield. My objection was to the drooling tone of the piece.
Drooling over military technology strikes me as immoral. Do we really need more ways to kill people? We seem to be making do very well with the methods already at hand.
No, wait, I'll say more: it reminds me of that chilling description in "1984" where a crowd in a movie theater is cheering on the machine-gunning of a woman and child in a boat.
I read that book as a small child (not a good idea), and reading that description I thought: This is really the end of everything good.
Well, I probably thought that using different words! But I remember very clearly thinking that in a world where people thought THAT way about violence and murder, there wasn't much to be hopeful about.
true enough, but in this case, it is evident that the damage is much more focused, with less collateral damage... how is that bad?
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
Teremia, we did very well at killing one another when we were armed with rocks.
Desiderat pacem, preparet bellum. Consider what lack of weaponry has done for the Darfurians! No prudent society can ever place itself in the position of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Drooling over military technology strikes me as immoral. Do we really need more ways to kill people? We seem to be making do very well with the methods already at hand.
Many thought that the invention of the nuclear bomb would end war. That failed to happen. Better killing machines do not mean a more peaceful world. The historical record shows that.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
it did end A war, and has prevented a lot of more massive conflicts.
It's entirely likely it's the only reason we're not at war with Russia right now.
Personally, I wish we all had weapons so terrible that no one could even think of using them... we are pretty close to that now... we just also have leaders of some countries who are insane.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
:D:D It's about time! All these years lasers have been used only for targeting and now we can finallly blast with them.
