New weapon could mean the end of collateral damage

Insight Magazine ^ | 1/30/2006 | Insight on the news

[drhogan]

as soon as the democrats next get into office.

[Jhohanna]

POPCORN!!!!!!!!!!!

[Colorado Doug]

Spooky on steroids

[Mike Darancette]

TOP SECRET

[fso301]

What happens when the target has a multi-axis, highly reflective radar controlled surface plate?

[Dustbunny]

Sounds good, hope it is all that they 'hype' it to be.

[Puppet]

Can someone explain to me why a simple mirror isn't (or maybe it is) an effective countermeasure to a laser?

[TChris]

Have got everything but for the collection CDs, that includes Freudiana and Keats. Talk about hard to get.

Well, I wasn't even counting those. :-)

I need Gaudi and On Air ... and those two. :-/

[TChris]

"I only have two more CDs to go before I own them all."

I wouldn't want to be like you.

Oh, Life, There Must Be More! :-)

[MindBender26]

By your comment "Laughable post", are you disagreeing with the original post or my conclusion that this weapons system could do much more harm to us than an enemy?

Semper Gumby
(Always flexible)

[MindBender26]

No mirror is 100% reflective. In combat environment, 80% would be about the best you could hope for.

So, since laws of physics state: "energy is neither made or destroyed, only converted to other form" then mirror would absorb remaining 20% of energy, convert it into heat and mirror would quickly shatter from ezxcessive heat.

[MilspecRob]

It's the kind of tool that could bring about victory within minutes," an official said. This is the stupidest statement I've seen in quite awhile.

Darn only 5 posts to say what caught my eye about the article. I agree 100%

[okie01]

"Shock and awe" still wins wars where antiseptic surgical precision will not. Most conceivable fights in the future will still need boots on the ground.

Still, a smoking hole in the ground can have a high persuasion quotient.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am disagreeing with your comment. What kind of argument is it that claims we should not develop better weapons because some country may steal the technology? Fortunately such thinking is rare or we would armed only with a sharp, pointed stick.

[MindBender26]

I don't disagree with the development of the weapons system. If we didn't do it, someone else would.

My only worry is that this could make life very difficult for TACAIR and we (and the West) depend on TACAIR as a critical integral part of our warfighting capability.

Gulf War One was won on the ground in 100 hours because of what TACAIR did in the six weeks running up to those 100 hours. Take away the softening TACAIR did and it would have been a very different ground war.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Who is going to be able to produce and deploy this before we have a defense against it?

[MindBender26]

We are far from the only technologically advanced society in the world. For example, night vision was issued to Sov troops before we ever had any clue about it being in development. The USSR, supposedly 2 decades behind us but they had a DEPLOYABLE H-Bonb before we did. The Brits are far ahead in defensive armor metallurgy, the French in deflected thrust flight controls, etc.

In addition, size is a big issue in weapons development. For example, our nuc warheads are far superior in size/weight/yield ratios, but that advantage can become meaningless. We can deploy a 500 Kt fission-fusion weapon in a relatively tiny package, about the size of large suitcase.

The Islamoterrorists would need a device that would require the space inside a large van or truck for a weapon of 1/4 the yield, but when you are going to deliver it by van or "Ryder truck" not a missile and in the process take out the lower 2/3 of Manhattan, who cares about size.

To think that we are the only nation capable of deploying this system, especially in a large, "sloppy" truck mounted configuration, is foolish overconfidence.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I fear the next attacks will be of the Breslan nature not sophisticated weaponry. After all the greatest yet was simplicity itself requiring a tiny amount of resources and producing a prodigious cost.

[MindBender26]

I have to clear airport security about 2-6 times a week. I know exactly what you mean. Millions of man hours and dollars, not really wasted, just without effect.

This isn't terrorism, it's classic guerrilla war. They are simply following Mao's rules.