Say Hello To My Little Death Ray! (Trees And Things)

skeptic: anticipating the future

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:13:38 EST

I am a science fiction fan, and the science ficitonal tradition, going back at least to Jules Verne, is that new technology creates new opportunity and should be celebrated as such; technology can be abused, but it can also be used productively; ultimately

JimmyHavok: Re: comparative assassination

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:53:36 EST

It's not the weapon I find objectionable, it's your naive celebration of its potential. You can't stp tech, that doesn't mean you have to look forward to its abuse with anticipation.

skeptic: Re: comparative assassination

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:35:17 EST

No, I do not have faith that the abuse of power will be limited to popular scapegoats. The abuse of power is a danger that knows no limits. That is why, as the old saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Your present argument

Lou: Re: shouting "nuke" in a crowded theater

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:42:54 EST

marital calculus

Huh? What is that? Hard math for hard bodies?

zyxwvutsr: shouting "nuke" in a crowded theater

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:23:57 EST

I was merely discussing the comparative costs of different ways of doing so

Yup, yup, I get it. There are no externalized costs in your martial calculus.

JimmyHavok: Re: comparative assassination

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:13:38 EST

There is no declaration of war, ergo there is no war, despite the President's abuse of his powers. Killing someone because "they are bad" is a similar abuse of powers, even if that person is Osama bin Laden. You seem to have great faith that th

skeptic: Re: comparative assassination

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:42:25 EST

Sometimes we find ourselves embroiled in arguments over nomenclature. American soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supposedly this is part of a war on terror, but is that an actual war? There have also been wars declared metaphor

JimmyHavok: Re: comparative assassination

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:36:03 EST

In times of war

There's a war?

It may make it easier to carry out that decision

...and easier to do it covertly. I find your celebration of that ability to be naive and disturbing.

skeptic: Re: comparative assassination

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:06:31 EST

In times of war, the basic decisions (such as whether to go to war in the first place) are made (in the US) by the President, who is also the Commander In Chief, and then the implementation of those basic decisions is carried out by a chain of command. &nb

JimmyHavok: Re: No, It's Logistics.

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:26:22 EST

Who were the other bidders?

No one.

logistical fairies?

Most of the outsourced stuff used to be handled by the military itself, but now it is handled (at a premium) by outside contractors. For example, my co-worker was a cook i

JimmyHavok: Re: comparative assassination

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:18:45 EST

in the case of bin Laden it is a good reason, and in the case of the guy in the t-shirt, it is a terrible reason.

And who gets to decide that a reason is good?

MayorBob: Re: No, It's Logistics.

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:47:34 EST

Nope, it's still logistics, Jimmy. Yes, we're aware that Halliburton (or Kellogg, Root & Brown) caught a bit of business supplying troops in Iraq. Did they catch it because they were cronies or because they were among the few companies qualified to p

skeptic: comparative assassination

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:40:19 EST

That is a curious question. Neither assassination is arbitrary; bin Laden could be assassinated on the grounds that he is (or appears to be) the mastermind of horrendous acts of international terrorism, and is the spokesman for a terrorist organizati

skeptic: nuclear weapons

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:35:35 EST

You usually assume too much. You are always determined to frame the discussion in terms of some obvious truth that I am supposedly too ignorant to know. But I never said that killing people on the battlefield is the best way to win a war.

snwodttam: The Real Question

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:16:57 EST

The real question for this new device is can it be used to pop a house full of popcorn?

skeeter1: Re: Battlefield? How about over the air?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:55:50 EST

"They're pretty abrupt, as far as the real-life lasers I've seen demonstrated (anywhere from pointers to industrial and surgical lasers)."

Well, as far as laser pointers go, I've got one that I use to play with the cats. They go absolutely

JimmyHavok: Re: No, It's Logistics.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:18:03 EST

...and almost all of that is outsourced to private crony companies at inflated rates, nowadays. Only the middle section, the movement, evacuation, and hospi

MayorBob: No, It's Logistics.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:21:30 EST
In military parlance it's "the procurement, supply, and maintenance of equipment, with the movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel, with the provision of facilities and services, and with related matters."

Lou: Not so fast

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:35:36 EST
Our Electromagnetic Dreams may yet come true.

Lou: Who knew?

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:08 EST

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

skeeter1: Re: How appealing!

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:29:23 EST
And here I thought electromagnetic railguns were going to be the "Next Big Thing". I don't think they ever really got going, and it's probably less lik

zyxwvutsr: Re: the cost of weapons

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:18:21 EST

As always, you do not understand my comments even after I exhaustively explain them to you
You know, I reread your initial comment and have changed my mind. You're right: if one's goal is simply "to kill people on battlefield

JimmyHavok: Re: the cost of weapons

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:28:22 EST
logistics.
What a delicate way to say "profiteering cronies."

JimmyHavok: Re: How appealing!

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:26:04 EST
What is the difference between arbitrarily assassinating Osama bin Laden and arbitrarily assassinating a guy in a Buck Fush t-shirt?

skeptic: Re: the cost of weapons

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:46:42 EST
As always, you do not understand my comments even after I exhaustively explain them to you. There is nothing I can do about that, other than to stop replying to you and thereby allowing you to remain ignorant. I just explained to you that I kno

zyxwvutsr: Re: the cost of weapons

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:42:13 EST

I have noticed that you always like to find some insulting way of making whatever point you wish to make. So you naturally conclude that I completely misunderstand the cost of projecting US military power
You are arguin

gerrymander: Re: Most assassinations require assassins ...

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:34:19 EST
I concur completely, skeptic.

joshv: Re: Most assassinations require assassins ...

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:28:04 EST
Exactly how thick do you think the atmosphere is? When you go straight up, there isn't much atmosphere at 20 miles. Most of those 26,000 miles are hard vacuum.

skeptic: Re: the cost of weapons

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:42:18 EST
I have noticed that you always like to find some insulting way of making whatever point you wish to make. So you naturally conclude that I completely misunderstand the cost of projecting US military power. But I didn't say that it would be chea

zyxwvutsr: Re: the cost of weapons

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:25:31 EST

The cheapest way to kill people (as was recently demonstrated in Rwanda) is to hack them to death with machetes
You completely misunderstand the cost of projecting US military power. To the cost of a machete, add the logistic

skeptic: Re: Most assassinations require assassins ...

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:49:05 EST
Your technical objections are well taken. It may well be that a satellite-based laser would never be a good weapon against a target on the ground (although it might be very useful as a weapon against other satellites). Satellite-based mass driv

skeptic: Re: How appealing!

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:42:42 EST
I understand your concern, and of course it is true that better weapons systems bring with them greater opportunities for abuse. But it would already be possible for a despotic government to arbitrarily execute anyone it doesn't like; this happens ro

skeptic: the cost of weapons

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:37:00 EST
I am not going to state the specific amount of dollars per enemy casualty that I would consider to qualify as a cost-effective weapon, but it is true that high-tech weapons are getting more expensive all the time, and the US is already in a terrible financ

zyxwvutsr: Re: I Can Understand Untraceability.

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:07:21 EST
Not.

Lou: Re: I Can Understand Untraceability.

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:53:34 EST
That was an impressive video. I'm kinda disappointed though...I couldn't tell if any of them was Bin Laden or not.

zyxwvutsr: Re: I Can Understand Untraceability.

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:22:59 EST

This doesn't seem like such a useful battlefield weapon; there are, after all, lots of ways to kill people on battlefields, almost all of which are much less expensive in terms of dollars spent per number of people killed, than this new lase

delete me: Re: Battlefield? How about over the air?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:44:50 EST
They're pretty abrupt, as far as the real-life lasers I've seen demonstrated (anywhere from pointers to industrial and surgical lasers). If the laser operator can just resist from going, "Pew! Pew! Pew!" into the radio before firing, there's little chance

JimmyHavok: How appealing!

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:08:36 EST
"Look at that, there's a guy in a Buck Fush t-shirt!"
"Nope, not anymore."

PenitenziAgite: Re: Already There?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:19:56 EST
And we still would have invaded Iraq.

MayorBob: Re: Battlefield? How about over the air?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:13:46 EST
I think a savvy battlefield commander will have to be on the wary for radio communications that read, "Chekhov, arm the photon torpedoes."

Lou: Re: Battlefield? How about over the air?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:07:07 EST
Yeah...but the tricky part would be knowing. Maybe these lasers give off some sort of energy signature before they fire. Or have I watched too much Star Trek?

delete me: Re: Battlefield? How about over the air?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:58:46 EST
That might work out pretty well if you knew someone was shooting at you.

Lou: Re: Battlefield? How about over the air?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:54:22 EST
Lasers are a bit hard to throw off with chaff.
What about a fog? Instead of strips of aluminum (which might work nicely against a laser if you timed it right), you shoot out a puff of fog dispersing the beam. Of course, timing is ever

delete me: Battlefield? How about over the air?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:10:32 EST
When I first heard about the weapon being developed, one of the potential uses mentioned was aiming it at another plane. Originally, the idea was that you could blind pilots with it. No need for that now, if it can melt parts off an airplane.
Lasers are

gerrymander: Re: Most assassinations require assassins ...

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:49:14 EST
the improved version that is satellite based and can kill any person at any time in any location, from space
Math and physics work against this coming to fruition any time soon. Scatter is your first problem; there are a lot of atmosphere molecul

skeptic: Re: Most assassinations require assassins ...

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:08:59 EST
Yes, that is an appealing vision. Even better would be the improved version that is satellite based and can kill any person at any time in any location, from space. This would be very useful as a deterrent, even if it were never to be used (or

MayorBob: Most assassinations require assassins ...

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:27:04 EST
... getting real close to the target get the job done. In a case of Saddam (as it is with most heads of state or evil drug lords) they're usually very careful about where they go and they're heavily guarded the entire time they'd be vulnerable. Thus, com

uncarved block: Already There?

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:59:39 EST
Y'know, I was thinking about something like this in the run up to the second Iraq invasion: if Saddam had dropped dead of a perfectly natural heart attack (or stroke, or what have you), how many people around the world would have thought the

skeptic: Re: I Can Understand Untraceability.

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:17:40 EST
This doesn't seem like such a useful battlefield weapon; there are, after all, lots of ways to kill people on battlefields, almost all of which are much less expensive in terms of dollars spent per number of people killed, than this new laser system.

MayorBob: I Can Understand Untraceability.

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:14:39 EST
From the standpoint of not exposing the location of the ATL, tends to make this a great weapon system. However, the whole plausible deniability, insofaras not being able to say "the US has the Angry Fist of God in its arsenal and did it to you and wi