And we still would have invaded Iraq.  

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

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 at least, never used after an initial demonstration, because if it is never demonstrated it is not a convincing deterrent).

"Look at that, there's a guy in a Buck Fush t-shirt!"

"Nope, not anymore."

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 routinely in many countries already, without the benefit of high-tech laser systems.  Hypothetically, if George W. Bush were to suddenly call off the 2008 election and declare martial law, and if he were able to obtain the continued support of the military, he could have his enemies or critics shot with ordinary bullets, the old-fashioned way, without requiring any new orbital weapons, laser weapons, etc.

The appeal of new and better weapons is that they could be used more effectively to win the war on terror, in theory - although we do still have to find Osama bin Laden before we can kill him, no matter how good our weapons may be.

What is the difference between arbitrarily assassinating Osama bin Laden and arbitrarily assassinating a guy in a Buck Fush t-shirt?

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 organization, al Qaeda, and the guy in the Buck Fush t-shirt would appear to be a (thinly disguised) critic of George W. Bush.  There is a comprehensible reason for killing either of them.  The difference is that 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.

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?

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.  Ultimately, on the ground, individual soldiers make decisions all the time about who to shoot and who not to shoot, although they have various orders from their superior officers which guide them in making those decisions.  That's how the chain of command works.  If rifles are replaced by lasers, the decision making process is the same.  Only the weapons change.  You may not like the decision-making process, but that is a separate issue.

In times of peace, fewer people would be killed, but there is still capital punishment (in which case the decisions are made by a very elaborate judicial process), and there are still a certain number of people who get shot and killed by the police in what they deem to be dangerous situations.  Again, individual police make such decisions, guided by the policies of the police department, the laws of the land, and the specific orders that they may receive by higher ranking police officers.  And again, the decisions would be very similar regardless of whether people are being killed with guns or with laser beams or by any other means.  The weapon used does not alter the decision of whether to kill or not to kill.  It may make it easier to carry out that decision, if the weapon is of superior power.  That's the only difference.

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.

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 metaphorically on poverty, and on drugs, and various other things.  Maybe the war on terror is of that sort, not a real war.  But then, lots of people are getting shot, blown up, or otherwise meeting with a violent demise, so it sure looks like a real war.  But has Congress declared war?  No.  This may just be a failure on the part of Congress to face reality.  I personally think that when America goes to war, they should also declare war, just to be clear about what they are doing.  But even if war is not declared, there can still be a war.  The US never declared war against North Vietnam although the Vietnamese War went on for over a decade, causing immense destruction and loss of life.  The Iraq War is also quite lengthy, for a war that has never been declared.

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 the abuse of power will be limited to popular scapegoats, and never aimed closer to home.

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 seems to be that we don't want out government to have more powerful weapons because those weapons may wind up being used against us, which, of course, they may.  Although even the old-fashioned guns that have been around for centuries would be sufficient to allow a corrupt government to kill us.  And even the swords and arrows used by the Roman Empire would be sufficient to kill us if those were the most advanced weapons available.  Horrendous despotism has existed in human history long before the creation of sophisticated modern weapons.

Meanwhile, if our government has inferior weapons, or if it is completely disarmed to make it less dangerous, we would then be vulnerable to the abuse of power by OTHER governments or agencies; even the Hell's Angel's would be capable of taking over the country if they did not face any armed opposition.  Although who knows, perhaps you would prefer to be governed by the Hell's Angels.  At least the war on drugs would be over.  Personally, I don't trust them.  Not that I trust George W. Bush, either.  In politics, we often have no choice but to seek the lesser evil.

Ideally, it would be better to live in a world in which there are no armies and no military weapons, and even civilian weapons are very minimal, needed only to kill the occasional marauding bear or rabid dog.  And who knows, the human race may eventually reach that state.  But this is certainly not going to happen in my lifetime.

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.

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, the future of the human race will be better because technology advances. This may not actually be true, but it is at least a lovely dream.  You could also point out that in the 21st century the trend in SF is increasingly dystopian, and even science fiction is having a hard time maintaining some degree of optimism.  Perhaps it is always wiser to expect the worst.  Of course, if I were really to expect the worst in all situations, I would not even be posting comments on this web-site, since I could foresee only unfortunate consequences for any communication that I might attempt with my fellow corrupt human beings.  Only death would have any remaining value, as it would allow us to escape the infinite horror of our existence.

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 likely now.  

there's only one way to find out...

Our Electromagnetic Dreams may yet come true.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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 molecules between the satellite and the intended target, and all of them soak up power when the beam ionizes them while passing.

Then there's dispersal; lasers aren't perfectly parallel beams, and the greater the distance, the greater the beam spreads. Twenty miles isn't enough to notice the effect much, but 26,000 miles is.

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 drivers shooting ultra-high velocity crowbars would seem to be a more promising system.  And compared to weapons based in airplanes, satellites are harder to observe and harder to shoot down, and have much broader fields of fire, and can remain in position tremendously longer without refueling, so they do seem to offer some advantages.  But it remains to be seen whether we will ever get to that point.  When you are at war it is good to be able to win, but peace remains the better option if it is obtainable.

I concur completely, skeptic.

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.

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 everything.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That might work out pretty well if you knew someone was shooting at you.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

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?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I think a savvy battlefield commander will have to be on the wary for radio communications that read, "Chekhov, arm the photon torpedoes."

Illegitimi non carborundum.

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 for reaction.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

"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 ballistic when I shine the "magic bug" on the ground.  All I have to do is pick it up and jingle it's little chain and they come running.  Cats (at least mine) aren't the brightest creatures around.

there's only one way to find out...

That was an impressive video.  I'm kinda disappointed though...I couldn't tell if any of them was Bin Laden or not.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Not.

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 financial state, largely (but not exclusively) due to excessive military spending.  Since the US seems to be headed toward bankruptcy, the US military might do very well to think about more affordable ways of projecting power.  But as I previously noted, even a very expensive system such as the new deluxe flying laser, could be worth its cost if it were used strategically to eliminate particularly important targets.

The cheapest way to kill people (as was recently demonstrated in Rwanda) is to hack them to death with machetes, and when all the more expensive munitions are exhausted, that's exactly what I expect people to do.  Even the Road Warrior will eventually run out of shotgun shells.

The cheapest way to kill people (as was recently demonstrated in Rwanda) is to hack them to death with machetes

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 cheap for the US to send soldiers over to Iraq to hack insurgents to death with machetes, I merely observed that hacking people to death with machetes is still the cheapest way to kill them.  In the event that warfare is reduced to that level due to lack of financing for more expensive weapons, then the US will certainly not be sending troops to Iraq or anywhere else (other, possibly, than Canada and Mexico, which can still be reached very cheaply, on foot if necessary).  If all the US can afford is machetes, then those machetes will be used in the US (or very nearby), not overseas.  And chances are, if the US economy is in that much trouble, other countries will be in similar trouble, and so no one will be able to afford to invade the US anyway.  Nor would a 9/11 style terrorist attack seem likely.  Air travel would also become too expensive, at that point.

And even though very little has been spent on new weapons systems for the US forces fighting in Iraq, it is still true that the US is using some very expensive weapons and is busy developing new and more expensive systems.  There is, after all, a reason why the US, a nation of some three hundred million people in a world of perhaps seven billion, which makes the US population roughly 4% of the global total, is still the world's militarily dominant power.  Obviously the US does not field the world's largest armies or anywhere near the largest.  But the US has the expensive military hardware that gives it an edge, as long as it continues to be able to afford that expense.

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

Of all the things that US defense spending pays for, the cost of personnel is, by far, the largest expenditure. Expensive though such technologies and methods are on a per-soldier basis, high-tech weapons like the ATL and special operations ground forces used to help aim such weapons are known as "force multipliers", a term of art that serves to indicate that they make accomplishing a mission much cheaper than it would otherwise be.

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 know perfectly well that the cost of sending the troops to Iraq is the primary cost, not the cost of the weapon, and that my comment about machetes refers to a different situation when the US hypothetically would not even be able to send troops overseas, and your response is to explain to me once again that no, it is not the cost of the weapons, but the cost of sending the troops overseas which makes the war so expensive.  Anyway, it was a mistake for me even to try to communicate with you, clearly that leads nowhere.  Talking to you is even more futile than the war in Iraq itself.  Although less expensive.

As always, you do not understand my comments even after I exhaustively explain them to you

I was assuming too much. I thought perhaps you knew that killing people on battlefield is seldom the best way to win a war.

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.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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.  I was merely discussing the comparative costs of different ways of doing so.  And although it is usually better to avoid being on the battlefield in the first place, when you actually are on a battlefield and you are engaged in battle with enemies who are trying to kill you, there is definitely an advantage to killing them first.  It is also better to avoid having to go to war in the first place.  It took many decades of misguided foreign policy by the US to bring us to the situation in which the US now finds it necessary to fight a war on terror.  It all could have been avoided.

Strictly in terms of the number of deaths that can be caused (on the battlefield or elsewhere) per dollars spent, I would agree with you that nuclear weapons are the most cost-effective means.  (So you see, even you and I can occasionally agree about something.)  This is particularly true for the US, which has already spent approximately a trillion dollars creating a huge nuclear arsenal which, except for two relatively small atomic bombs used at the end of WW II, has never been used.  It requires practically no new spending to use the weapons that the US already has, so that is very cost-effective.  And I do believe that if the war on terror goes badly for the US, the eventual result will be an escalation to nuclear war.  So the more successful the terrorists are, the closer they will bring themselves, and everything that they value or think that they are fighting for, to complete annihilation.

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

marital calculus

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

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

logistics.

What a delicate way to say "profiteering cronies."

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."  

Illegitimi non carborundum.

...and almost all of that is outsourced to private crony companies at inflated rates, nowadays.  Only the middle section, the movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel isn't privatized.

How do you think Halliburton made so much money? Printing presses?

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 perform the requirements of the contract? Who were the other bidders? What were their qualifications and experience? But that covers the "getting stuff to the troops in Iraq" portion of logistics. What is the size and depth of logistical outfitting which has been outsourced to the rest of the US military? How do you think the stuff got to the troops in the US, Europe, the Pacific, and everywhere else other than Iraq -- by logistical fairies?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

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 in the National Guard, but when he was deployed to Iraq, he said that most of the people working in the mess halls were civilians.

There are claims that this leads to a more efficient military.  My contention is that it leads to a more profitable military-industrial complex, under the guise of logistics as usual.