NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the United Nations raise the embargo placed on the use of lazer weapons in the battle field ?

Should the United Nations raise the embargo placed on the use of lazer weapons in the battle field ?
IT'S LASER! Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. L.A.S.E.R. Unless you're retarded and spell 'stimulated' with a Z (that's zed, not zee).
And laser weapons = bad.

If its spelt with a "z" or an "s" is totaly irrelevant to us !

If its spelt with a "z" or an "s" is totaly irrelevant to us !
Nope. Spell things wrong you'll have the Grammar Nazis on your ass quicker than you can say, well, Grammar Nazi.
http://nesworld.emuchrist.org/pics/grammar_nazi.jpg

Not unlezs they raize the embargo on llaszerr firzt.

Oh yes, what could possibly be wrong with listing a weapons ban that might actually work because no one has them yet, and if allowed could do horrible things? /sarcasm

Seriously, are laser weapons that far developed at this point?

The U.N is not laser faire enough. :D

Seriously, are laser weapons that far developed at this point?

As far as I know, its mostly anti-missile types so far only. Not field tested and not really proven to be superior in operation against existing AMS platforms yet.

well, anti-missile systems aren't banned right? I was under the impression it only applied to weaponry, not, er...anti-weaponry?

well, anti-missile systems aren't banned right?They're not banned up to a point. You're not allowed to make your country invulnerable to nuclear ballistic missiles if you have them yourself. Because that might open the door to you using them and nobody being able to do anything against it. Which is exactly why the US wants such a missile shield, and exactly why many other countries object to the US getting one.
Or something like that..

Should the United Nations raise the embargo placed on the use of lazer weapons in the battle field ?
The French, Russians, and Chinese are fielding laser weapons intended to "dazzle" or blind people. Nice.

The US seems to have abandoned that route - they are in the process of fielding two laser weapons:
Advanced Tactical Laser
Airborne Laser

The ATL is intended to be placed aboard a heavy lift helicopter or small cargo plane in order to attack ground targets as far away as 20 miles. It can hit many small targets in rapid succession in a few seconds (hitting targets as small as antennas and tires) or lancing through solid steel in burns of a few seconds each. It is silent in operation. The beam is invisible to the eye. There is no defense against it.

No one else has one.

The Airborne Laser is a high powered version of the ATL, and is intended to vaporize ballistic missiles. It is mounted in the nose of a 747. It can also shoot down fighter aircraft and air-to-air missiles.

No one else has one.

So, I can see why people would want to limit them - because they fear that the US is so far ahead on the development of rapidly cooled solid state lasers that they will get their asses handed to them on the battlefield.

the horror

THE HORROR

the horror

THE HORROR
What horror?

Is a weapon that can lance out of the sky and hit an individual man from 20 miles away and vaporize him without killing anyone around him a "horror"?

When you're dead, you're dead. Would you rather that we use a 2000 lb bomb?

The nice feature about the ATL is that you can predesignate a set of targets, say, a dozen different ones. Antennas, truck tires, a few select people. The system will continue to track these targets until you fire, and when you fire, all of the targets are hit in just a few seconds. All in complete silence and with no visible signature (well, the tires burst and the antennas melt and the people fry).

Very, very selective weapon. Probably the ultimate in precision while radically reducing collateral damage.

When you're dead, you're dead. Would you rather that we use a 2000 lb bomb?I think I'd rather not be killed, let alone without a fair trial. But hey, that's just me..

Very, very selective weapon. Probably the ultimate in precision while radically reducing collateral damage.Don't be too surprised if it doesn't work as advertised. We've seen 'precision' weaponry before. There simply no accounting for human error.

Meh, the world should just preemptively surrender, join the states, and get a vote for who runs the world, unlike now when it's just the americans that get a vote for who runs the world ;)

The ATL <snip> It is silent in operation. The beam is invisible to the eye. There is no defense against it.Supercooled reflectors. Shoot at those, and you get fried yourself :rolleyes:

The bunkers of the future will be a dazzling sight.

What horror?

Is a weapon that can lance out of the sky and hit an individual man from 20 miles away and vaporize him without killing anyone around him a "horror"?

When you're dead, you're dead. Would you rather that we use a 2000 lb bomb?

The nice feature about the ATL is that you can predesignate a set of targets, say, a dozen different ones. Antennas, truck tires, a few select people. The system will continue to track these targets until you fire, and when you fire, all of the targets are hit in just a few seconds. All in complete silence and with no visible signature (well, the tires burst and the antennas melt and the people fry).

Very, very selective weapon. Probably the ultimate in precision while radically reducing collateral damage.
Yes, and very, very, VERY power-consuming. To kill a man 20 miles away with a laser would require you to tap the power of an entire country (figuratively speaking).

PS: Lasers are PMT, at the earliest.

I think I'd rather not be killed, let alone without a fair trial. But hey, that's just me..

Don't be too surprised if it doesn't work as advertised. We've seen 'precision' weaponry before. There simply no accounting for human error.

Meh, the world should just preemptively surrender, join the states, and get a vote for who runs the world, unlike now when it's just the americans that get a vote for who runs the world ;)

The ATL works just fine in tests. It isn't aimed by a human. The human selects targets and cues the firing. But the computer does all the aiming and firing on its own. It's far more accurate than a human.

The Airborne Laser is in its final testing stages this year. The laser has already demonstrated its accuracy at low power, and it has demonstrated full power in ground tests. It's 400% more powerful than they thought it would be. Airborne tests against ballistic missiles will be conducted this year at full power.

Since when do soldiers in combat get a fair trial before they are killed? Eh?

Yes, and very, very, VERY power-consuming. To kill a man 20 miles away with a laser would require you to tap the power of an entire country (figuratively speaking).

PS: Lasers are PMT, at the earliest.
You know not of what you speak.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/atl.htm

There have been quite a few advances recently.

Nice to see serval descent ideas, but Laser weapons have been develped and have been succefuly tested both in theatrical operational levels and during current "mini wars" the earliest known use during a battle was in Bosnia and later during the Kuwait and obviously during the rescent war in Iraq. Therefore if anyone has anything to contribute to this please do so.

You know not of what you speak.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/atl.htm

There have been quite a few advances recently.
Interesting. I did know what I was speaking, but I was just slightly outdated. :p

At any rate, it certainly won't be used to kill soldiers. There are many more valuable targets. And damn, it kills the general conception of the red beam... (the real beam is invisible). :(

Nice to see serval descent ideas, but Laser weapons have been develped and have been succefuly tested both in theatrical operational levels and during current "mini wars" the earliest known use during a battle was in Bosnia and later during the Kuwait and obviously during the rescent war in Iraq. Therefore if anyone has anything to contribute to this please do so.
Those were "non-lethal" dazzling or blinding systems, as well as laser pointers and laser rangefinders.

US infantry today have a few laser pointers that operate in the IR spectrum in the squad. Used to point out targets at night for the squad to fire on.

Most armored vehicles have laser rangefinders.

French, Russian, and UK ships have lasers intended to blind attacking pilots.

The Chinese sell a man-portable blinding laser.

The US experimented with a blinding laser in Somalia but found it to be ineffective in general, largely because it operated at a power level that made the blinding temporary instead of permanent.

The ATL works just fine in tests. It isn't aimed by a human. The human selects targets and cues the firing. But the computer does all the aiming and firing on its own. It's far more accurate than a human.Under optimal conditions, sure. When do you get those though? And how many glitches does it take to screw up the targetting mechanism or computer? Can they keep the insides sand and dust free? There's plenty of things that could potentially go wrong. And I wouldn't bet they won't.

Since when do soldiers in combat get a fair trial before they are killed? Eh?Since when was war executing people from 20 miles distance?

At any rate, it certainly won't be used to kill soldiers. There are many more valuable targets. And damn, it kills the general conception of the red beam... (the real beam is invisible). :( Yeah, because it doesn't reflect off the dust in the air... or something like that.

For red beams, you want plasma weapons, which are currently a lot more feasible than laser weapons. Same technology as railguns.

Since when was war executing people from 20 miles distance? The Germans called their ships "Fünf Minuten Schiffe" (I think) when HMS Dreadnought could obliterate them from 32 miles without them being able to strike.

The Germans called their ships "Fünf Minuten Schiffe" (I think) when HMS Dreadnought could obliterate them from 32 miles without them being able to strike.I'd bring up the difference between blowing up ships and executing everyone on board, but I suppose the distinction doesn't really matter to the dead (as pointed out before).

Since when was war executing people from 20 miles distance?

It's called artillery, and sometimes it's called tac air.

I remember when the 1st ID pulled up within range of Iraqi observation towers on the Kuwait border prior to the start of the ground war, and used Copperhead laser-guided artillery rounds to pick individuals out of the tops of those towers.

Once the Iraqis lost the ability to see what was happenning at the border, the 1st Infantry Division moved northwest to begin the flanking movement.

Sort of a "poke your eyes out so you can't see, and move to where you least expect it - that is, if you even notice we're gone".

I was talking about range finders or any sort of ir targerting systems, im talking about sattelite systems wich incorporate laser technology in defence and offence, now unless someone has any real long-lat-sec in respect to telemetrys dont bother.

P.S. What the world is used to seeing for the last 50 years in sci-fi films...well guess what is real and here to stay.

There is no defense against it.


First off, the same kind of detection units that pick up laser targetting acquisition systems.

Second. Chaff grenades. But with highly reflective aluminium strips. Messes with radar, but it make a mix thick enough and it will refract the energy of a laser to near uselessness.

I am pro-laser, but would prefer to see PPCs and Gauss Rifles.

I am pro-laser, but would prefer to see PPCs and Gauss Rifles.
Definately.

Forget lasers or lazers, mega particle guns are where the real damage is at.

Nope. Spell things wrong you'll have the Grammar Nazis on your ass quicker than you can say, well, Grammar Nazi.
http://nesworld.emuchrist.org/pics/grammar_nazi.jpg

You mean Arse
An ass is a donkey
Only retarded yanks say ass when they mean arse

You mean Arse
An ass is a donkey
Only retarded yanks say ass when they mean arse
Hey, you're being as bad of a nationalist language asshole as anyone can be!

Appreciate the diversity of the English Language, no matter how its butchered! :)

Hey, you're being as bad of a nationalist language asshole as anyone can be!

That was the point

I think I'd rather not be killed, let alone without a fair trial. But hey, that's just me..

Don't be too surprised if it doesn't work as advertised. We've seen 'precision' weaponry before. There simply no accounting for human error.

Meh, the world should just preemptively surrender, join the states, and get a vote for who runs the world, unlike now when it's just the americans that get a vote for who runs the world ;)

thats a very logical thought you have there..lol...but then we would be responsible for the whole freakin world...rather then picking and choosing who we help...your a starvin sub saharan african...sorry we cant help you...you aint got nothin we want...hmmmm...middle east...you guys have what! oil! we will be there directly.

and i am a dyed in the wool capitalist...go figure.

as too the actual topic...laser/lazer to the head..i am just as dead as if it was a bullet/bomb/carbomb/molotov cocktail..so i could careless...but less collateral damage(or in real terms..dead women and children)i am all for it!

hell i think lasers are actually getting old school.we can now hit you with high intensity lights to shut down your brain,sonic waves to incapacitate you...we are the masters of warfare you have to admit,and i do like the fact we try to minimise "collateral damage"

bluntly..i wouldnt pick a fight with the us unless you want to be a martyr.

so my answer is yes to lazer weapons...less innocents killed in the crossfire..the better.:mp5:

I don't see the big trouble with lasers. Isn't it better to blind someone than kill them? That would be the other choice we usually use currently.

Plus, I really just want a lightsaber. :D

Plus, I really just want a lightsaber. :D
What geek doesn't?