NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm

The new trend in US weaponry - mounting a laser on an aircraft to hit ground targets.

Theoretically, they could pick an individual out of a crowd and turn him into smoking footprints without harming the people around him.

Collateral damage, that so many of you seem to abhor, might be a thing of the past.

A very interesting technology. To me, the most interesting is the early prototypes and designs for weapons like this such as the Japanese experimented with towards the end of the war.

Just because you can hit one person, doesn't mean that they are the right person.

And a mirror wouldn't help?

But if it stops innocent people from getting hurt, I'm all for it.

Wow. I haven't heard of that program. That is a very cool piece of technology.

"Sir, what sort of bomb should we use today?"
"We don't. Vaporize him."

I have to say, it should be cost effective. Just a few bucks worth of electricity compared to thousands of dollars in missles.

Just because you can hit one person, doesn't mean that they are the right person.
Oh shut up.

And a mirror wouldn't help?

But if it stops innocent people from getting hurt, I'm all for it.

Apparently you would have to have a mirror that reflects that particular wavelength.

Additionally, while the beam aperture is 50 inches at the firing mirror, it is focuses down to quite a small pinpoint at the target. The firing mirror can barely take the heat with the beam at 50 inches wide - no mirror could take it at the focus.

The same mirror that is used for focusing the beam is also the tracking mirror - you see exactly where the laser is going at the moment of firing. It is apparently accurate enough to fry individual antennae off of vehicles without touching the vehicle - I would imagine that it's accurate enough to see a person's face without too much trouble.

And at a slant range of 10 miles, the person in question may have no idea that he's a target at all.

The weapon is completely silent in firing. No scifi sound effects - just turning someone into a puff of smoke.

And a mirror wouldn't help?

But if it stops innocent people from getting hurt, I'm all for it.

Only for certain frequencies. I doubt that a mirror would be very good at stoping an x-ray laser..

i want pictures of this giant death laser!

it better look suitably B-movie sci-fi

http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol1/num7/images/DVD-661-1.jpg

The new trend in US weaponry - mounting a laser on an aircraft to hit ground targets.
Meh. Betcha there'll still be lotsa kids limping around on one leg and a crutch after a housecall from the airbourne surgeons.

I'm screwed...

Meh. Betcha there'll still be lotsa kids limping around on one leg and a crutch after a housecall from the airbourne surgeons.
I'm not so sure.

According to the Boeing site, the mirror is so fast at retraining from target to target, and the fire control so sophisticated, and the magnification on the target mirror so great, that in the first pass, the gunner can mark up to 20 targets as small in diameter as the width of an antenna, then the plane comes back around and the laser hits all 20 targets in less than 10 seconds.

All this from 10 miles away.

this disintegrator ray would make marvin the martian proud

http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Marvin.gif


sweet deal though. watch our bad guys, the government gonna make you go poof!

Apparently you would have to have a mirror that reflects that particular wavelength.

Additionally, while the beam aperture is 50 inches at the firing mirror, it is focuses down to quite a small pinpoint at the target. The firing mirror can barely take the heat with the beam at 50 inches wide - no mirror could take it at the focus.

The same mirror that is used for focusing the beam is also the tracking mirror - you see exactly where the laser is going at the moment of firing. It is apparently accurate enough to fry individual antennae off of vehicles without touching the vehicle - I would imagine that it's accurate enough to see a person's face without too much trouble.

And at a slant range of 10 miles, the person in question may have no idea that he's a target at all.

The weapon is completely silent in firing. No scifi sound effects - just turning someone into a puff of smoke.

I just want to note that
1) it may not have been a heat issue that the focusing mirror needs to be 50 inches

2)even if it was power of beam at source as compared to that at target at 10 miles would be significantly different it should not need the equivalent at source to reflect. (that and you probably could go a bit smaller as their mirror does not have to be reusable)
Just pointing it out not saying it wont work or anything

That and I am sure we will some inventive ways to fuck with a laser beam... that and some old ways returning (such as smoke screens, or simply travailing on a fogy day)

I'm not so sure.

According to the Boeing site, the mirror is so fast at retraining from target to target, and the fire control so sophisticated, and the magnification on the target mirror so great, that in the first pass, the gunner can mark up to 20 targets as small in diameter as the width of an antenna, then the plane comes back around and the laser hits all 20 targets in less than 10 seconds.

All this from 10 miles away.
I would still worry right now about the stability of the shooting platform. At 10 miles the computational power to keep that sort of thing updating its targeting solution would be amazing.

I worked on a project that did fast speed camera control software and that stuff was amazingly hardcore to get the camera to point focus on set patterns from a moving vehicle (we were working on high speed high resolution still evidence gathering cameras for police cruisers)

I would still worry right now about the stability of the shooting platform. At 10 miles the computational power to keep that sort of thing updating its targeting solution would be amazing.

I worked on a project that did fast speed camera control software and that stuff was amazingly hardcore to get the camera to point focus on set patterns from a moving vehicle (we were working on high speed high resolution still evidence gathering cameras for police cruisers)

Think of its sister laser, the one meant for a 747 to shoot at ballistic missiles.

Hit a target accelerating to Mach 25, at a distance of 3000 to 4000 kilometers, and hold a stable 10 inch spot size for several seconds.

Note that if the beam shifts, say, 1 diameter, that's half the power per sq cm, and that may not be enough.

I think that some people in the black labs have better toys than we imagine if these things are considered workable in such small packages.

Of Lasers and Mirrors:

Here's the real low down on using mirrors to deflect lasers

1. The mirror must be capable of taking the heat without any deformation, even the slightest change in the surface of the mirror could damage its reflective capabilities enough to render it useless as a defense against a laser.

2. Any laser can be 'pulsed' so that all of the power it would have over long exposures (Multiple seconds) will be transmitted in amuch shorter time (fractions of one second) exponentially increasing the temperature the laser can achieve

They better start making the Star Treck Overclocked-remotes.







I mean phasers.

You know, in science talk Phaser means the same thing as Laser...

I don't know. It seems that something like this would make war cleaner and more efficient. The thing is though is that war is supposed to be horror and atrocity. That is why people seek peace. No matter how cleanly and efficiently one fights a war, it all boils down to the same thing: imposing one's view of right and wrong by force. Just because one country can blow up another one doesn't mean that it is just and proper for them to do so.

Now that I think about it, there was a Star Trek episode (TOS) , "A Taste of Armageddon" that demonstrated what happens when war becomes clean and efficient.

I don't think this will make war clean. Depending on the power this thing can either leave behind horribly charred corpses or can superheat the wwater in people tissues causing them to explode. The point where the body is consumed completely is a very fine line between these two not so clean options.

How does it not go right through the person and cut a tiny, tiny swath of destruction?

Collateral damage, that so many of you seem to abhor, might be a thing of the past.

You say that as though it's a bad thing to not want to see innocent people killed.

Great. Turning more freedom fighters into terrorists. :rolleyes:

Great. Turning more freedom fighters into terrorists. :rolleyes:

No, turning terrorists into fried hamburger! :D :D :D :D :D

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm

The new trend in US weaponry - mounting a laser on an aircraft to hit ground targets.

Theoretically, they could pick an individual out of a crowd and turn him into smoking footprints without harming the people around him.

Collateral damage, that so many of you seem to abhor, might be a thing of the past.

WOW! We might actually have a use for those tinfoil hats! :D

You all are aware of what this means, aren't you?
http://www.easyjournal.com/files/images/15930.jpeg

Only for certain frequencies. I doubt that a mirror would be very good at stoping an x-ray laser..

I'm a radiographer. You cant make xray lasers (so far), because xray travels through matter. Thus you can't reflect them, which is a critical part of making a laser. Maybe someday with some kind of electromagnetic reflector, but thats just speculative.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm

The new trend in US weaponry - mounting a laser on an aircraft to hit ground targets.

Theoretically, they could pick an individual out of a crowd and turn him into smoking footprints without harming the people around him.

Collateral damage, that so many of you seem to abhor, might be a thing of the past.

Two options for an enemy of this technology

low cost: take away the motivation for using it, make it so that if your hit it causes massive collateral damage; wear explosives, now the plane may as well be shooting smart bombs again.

high cost: a land based version of the same technology, a turret, is going to have a longer range and power and aeroplanes dont have cover.

Question: How far can a STA missile go?
Question: Given the cold war is long dead, is it worth the investment to fight people who live in caves and ride camels?

How far can it penetrate through armor and stone? Is it simply a melee weapon or are we talking about slicing bunkers apart and watching buildings errupt into flames?

As for the "riding camels" comment we this is what the best use of this tech would be. We already use automated drones now we can just fry them all with lazers while they run around in the mountains. I doubt the lazer is as effective in normal warfare with more advanced countries that have other planes and such. We need to to fry people who are meeting in little huts in the mountains without pissing off the whole village.

Now all we need are terminators that only dogs can detect. The trick is we will drop tons of bacon on the ground first to get those mangy bastards confused.

Actually now that I think about this more we could be talking about the assured future dominance of the United States if this weapon was wildly successful. I am not aware of any country with tracking abilities on par with ours and this lazer must use highly advanced tech beyond even our "smartest" bombs. If we could neutralize forces at the speed of light from 10 miles away we could be talking about an indestructable military power until the rest of the world catches up. Dreaming is fun.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm

The new trend in US weaponry - mounting a laser on an aircraft to hit ground targets.

Theoretically, they could pick an individual out of a crowd and turn him into smoking footprints without harming the people around him.

Collateral damage, that so many of you seem to abhor, might be a thing of the past.
K i dont know if this has been said before but. sorry to burst your bubble but this laser is for shooting down nuclear missiles on launch and is not an anti-personnel weapon

K i dont know if this has been said before but. sorry to burst your bubble but this laser is for shooting down nuclear missiles on launch and is not an anti-personnel weapon

You leave me cradling my shattered dreams.

Oh, so now we will have wars without civilian casualties? Like the Iraq war? "Smart bombs doesn't hit civilians"=BULLSHIT.

I scaresly believe, this will be a new miracle weapon. How the heck can the laser go to the exact right target from ten miles if it's mounted on a vibrating airplane?

Sorry if I sound angry, but so far no weapon has proved to be "civilian-friendly".

Oh, so now we will have wars without civilian casualties? Like the Iraq war? "Smart bombs doesn't hit civilians"=BULLSHIT.

I scaresly believe, this will be a new miracle weapon. How the heck can the laser go to the exact right target from ten miles if it's mounted on a vibrating airplane?

Sorry if I sound angry, but so far no weapon has proved to be "civilian-friendly".

Swords are pretty free from collateral damage. It is all in the usage.

Collateral damage, that so many of you seem to abhor

It's called being human.

I still have my doubts about that "one guy in a crowd" scenario. I would think that a laser of that power would be pretty damn hot, and probably make the air pretty warm in the proximity, which might just happen to set the people around the target on fire.

K i dont know if this has been said before but. sorry to burst your bubble but this laser is for shooting down nuclear missiles on launch and is not an anti-personnel weapon
Sorry to burst your bubble, but they've made a version for shooting people and vehicles on the ground. Perhaps if you read the link you would know more.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/laser.htm

The new trend in US weaponry - mounting a laser on an aircraft to hit ground targets.

Theoretically, they could pick an individual out of a crowd and turn him into smoking footprints without harming the people around him.

Collateral damage, that so many of you seem to abhor, might be a thing of the past.
anyone seen the movie "Real Genius"?

now all we need is a two story house and about a ton of popcorn kernals. :D

anyone seen the movie "Real Genius"?

now all we need is a two story house and about a ton of popcorn kernals. :D

Yes, it's a funny movie.

I also liked the defense commercial about the laser in the beginning of the movie, where the bad guy gets vaporized out of a lawn chair.

Well the first thing you'll find is people shooting down all your Herky-birds on the off-chance...

It sounds too good to be true. I suspect it is.

1) No technology is immune from defect (Smart Bombs aren't as smart as they might want you to think and even if they hit the target it's a half-ton of explosives going off)

2) It's a lot of energy, you can only keep it ordered for so long, I should think the dissipation would be fairly spectacular.

3) It looks like it needs a stable platform. An aircraft flying straight and level inside AA range is a sitting duck for a competent gunner/missile system.

Well the first thing you'll find is people shooting down all your Herky-birds on the off-chance...


The AC-130 is already used in that role, in areas where you don't have major AAA systems in place.

In the current version, and in the version with the laser, you're flying well out of anti-aircraft gun range, and out of shoulder-fired missile range (10 miles).

The AC-130 is commonly used today as a close air support aircraft, and is exceptionally good at it.

The AC-130 is commonly used today as a close air support aircraft, and is exceptionally good at it.
Well, commonly...I don't know. It's a rather expensive way of doing things, and so far they only have 21 of them alltogether, at a cost of up to $190 million a piece.

The AC-130 is already used in that role, in areas where you don't have major AAA systems in place.

In the current version, and in the version with the laser, you're flying well out of anti-aircraft gun range, and out of shoulder-fired missile range (10 miles).

The AC-130 is commonly used today as a close air support aircraft, and is exceptionally good at it.

In the same way that the F-15 has a perfect record. I'm fairly sure neither has gone against anyone with technical parity (or even close competition). I know the US has not directly fought an opponent with any kind of parity since Korea (or maybe 'Nam but I'm no kind of expert on that).

(not that that's necessarily a bad thing, only a fool fights an even battle)

Well, commonly...I don't know. It's a rather expensive way of doing things, and so far they only have 21 of them alltogether, at a cost of up to $190 million a piece.

"Commonly" as in "used in Iraq and Afghanistan now". It's preferable in situations where you want to hit pinpoint targets of opportunity, especially those that are in motion like individuals or vehicles, or you want to hit a building next to a mosque without hitting the mosque.

They used them in Fallujah, for example.

They aren't expensive per sortie. They are firing 25mm, 40mm, and 105mm rounds, sometimes singly, and they stay on station for 6 to 8 hours at a time.

Compare that to a 50 to 100 million dollar fighter, that stays on station for 20 minutes.

Just because you can hit one person, doesn't mean that they are the right person.
That's why you scan it rapidly across a wide area. You may end up incinerating a whole crowd of people, but who cares?:)

Meh. Betcha there'll still be lotsa kids limping around on one leg and a crutch after a housecall from the airbourne surgeons.
Well, that just means more jobs for folks in the prosthetic limb industry!

Great. Turning more freedom fighters into terrorists. :rolleyes:
More like turning terrorists into greasy black splotches on the pavement.

More like turning terrorists into greasy black splotches on the pavement.

Yes, because as we all know, terrorists walk around every so often and get into firefights. They don't.

They hide in shacks, build IEDs, car bombs, or wire themselves (or someone else) with explosives and then blow them up. Terrorists are like bacteria: they hide everywhere and no matter what you do, you can only get most of them, not all of them. Those who survive continue to operate and pass on their knowledge to recruits, who in turn develop new ways of hitting civilians. Eventually, we'll get to the point where we have no idea who any of these terrorists are and all of our shiney mirrors will be for nought.

The only thing the flying barbeque-crisper will be good for is killing insurgents who are dumb (and ballsy) enough to get in firefights with American and British GIs. People who we should be encouraging, to draw insurgents away from the lure of building bombs and anonymously blowing up civilians.

First airplane-mounted lasers, next beam rifles! :D

Yes, because as we all know, terrorists walk around every so often and get into firefights. They don't.

They hide in shacks, build IEDs, car bombs, or wire themselves (or someone else) with explosives and then blow them up. Terrorists are like bacteria: they hide everywhere and no matter what you do, you can only get most of them, not all of them. Those who survive continue to operate and pass on their knowledge to recruits, who in turn develop new ways of hitting civilians. Eventually, we'll get to the point where we have no idea who any of these terrorists are and all of our shiney mirrors will be for nought.

The only thing the flying barbeque-crisper will be good for is killing insurgents who are dumb (and ballsy) enough to get in firefights with American and British GIs. People who we should be encouraging, to draw insurgents away from the lure of building bombs and anonymously blowing up civilians.
Oh well, there's always strategic nuclear weapons. They may not be as clean and precise, but if there's a terrorist in the city they hit they'll kill him.:)

Oh well, there's always strategic nuclear weapons. They may not be as clean and precise, but if there's a terrorist in the city they hit they'll kill him.:)

*Sings*
Nuke, nuke, nuke,
Nuke the world,
Nuke, nuke
Nuke the world,
Nuke, nuke....

They should add sound effects to it. It would definetly be more interesting-not to mention fun-to vaporize people with a loud "Zap!" or "Pew Pew!" in the backround.

On the serious side, it would be great to eliminate collateral Damage from the battlefield. This thing, assuming it works right, will most likely revolutionize warfare as we know it. Perhaps Star Wars technology isn's as far off in the future as we thought?

But it still definetly needs sound effects.

But it still definetly needs sound effects.

Do an Apocalypse Now job and hang big speakers on the side of the plane with "Zap!" and "fwooosh" noises playing.

Do an Apocalypse Now job and hang big speakers on the side of the plane with "Zap!" and "fwooosh" noises playing.

The "zap" and "fwoosh" noises have to be taken from the old Battlestar Galactica. Granted, that would greatly increase the probability of civilian casualties (as listening to BSG sound effects is known to cause people's brains to explode), it would be so worth it!

Yes, because as we all know, terrorists walk around every so often and get into firefights. They don't.

That's the point of frying the little darlings from 10 miles away. Catch them in the act when they think they're safe. :)

They hide in shacks, build IEDs, car bombs, or wire themselves (or someone else) with explosives and then blow them up.

Very true. Terrorists are a pretty cowardly bunch in that regard that way. Good thing a lot of those poor fools blow themselves up while trying to make those bombs in the first place. :p

Terrorists are like bacteria:

Yeah, "scum and villainy" is the phrase I'd use to describe them but they really are a pretty diseased lot. :)


they hide everywhere and no matter what you do, you can only get most of them, not all of them.

True, but killing most of them is all it takes to make the rest reconsider their goals.


Those who survive continue to operate and pass on their knowledge to recruits,

The knowledge in this case being, "Don't become a terrorist or you die." ^____^

who in turn develop new ways of hitting civilians.

Yeah, Ph33r the abiliity of Noobs to invent. :rolleyes:

Eventually, we'll get to the point where we have no idea who any of these terrorists are and all of our shiney mirrors will be for nought.

So you're saying that only George Romero-like zombies would ever become terrorists? o_O

*snicker* ^~^

Don't worry. Some poor fool hiding out in his spiderhole will always get lonely enough to send out another bogus tape recording. ^_~

The only thing the flying barbeque-crisper will be good for is killing insurgents who are dumb (and ballsy) enough to get in firefights with American and British GIs.

And what part of "from 10 miles away" did no come across? :p Not too many terrorists getting in firefights at ranges of 10 miles now are there? n_n

People who we should be encouraging, to draw insurgents away from the lure of building bombs and anonymously blowing up civilians.

But we *are* encouraging them. No greater encouragement to a troublemaker to become peaceful then to see his comrade in arms get fried before his eyes from 10 miles away. :D He might have to change his pants as well as his ways but after that he'll become peaceful. ;)

That's the point of frying the little darlings from 10 miles away. Catch them in the act when they think they're safe. :)

Assuming we know where they are... in which case we'd send in the Marines or the Iraqi police to arrest them.

Very true. Terrorists are a pretty cowardly bunch in that regard that way. Good thing a lot of those poor fools blow themselves up while trying to make those bombs in the first place. :p

If I thought that by fighting the US government, I might get fried, I'd sooner blow stuff up from two klicks away than risk getting fried by that thing.

Yeah, "scum and villainy" is the phrase I'd use to describe them but they really are a pretty diseased lot. :)

I meant that the business of terrorism is one of fast-paced Darwinian theory in practice: the smartest ones will survive, the dumb ones will die off, and the smart ones will continue to be a problem.

True, but killing most of them is all it takes to make the rest reconsider their goals.

HA! We're talking about fanatics, here.

The knowledge in this case being, "Don't become a terrorist or you die." ^____^

More like, "Don't piss off the US government or you die."

Yeah, Ph33r the abiliity of Noobs to invent. :rolleyes:

What? You think that it was the Sons of Liberty who invented the idea of flying an airliner into a building to bring it down? It was the ability of those n00bs to invent.

So you're saying that only George Romero-like zombies would ever become terrorists? o_O

I meant the shiney mirrors that focus and direct the laser.

And what part of "from 10 miles away" did no come across? :p Not too many terrorists getting in firefights at ranges of 10 miles now are there? n_n

The insurgents get in firefights with GIs, the GIs call air support, they get it in the form of a Boeing with a frickin' laser attached to its forehead. Which part of "We don't know where they are," don't you get? I mean, I'd really like to know how useful this bloody thing would be at helping us track down Osama, let alone Muhammad Terrorist, building a bomb in his backyard. My answer: Not. At. All.

But we *are* encouraging them. No greater encouragement to a troublemaker to become peaceful then to see his comrade in arms get fried before his eyes from 10 miles away. :D He might have to change his pants as well as his ways but after that he'll become peaceful. ;)

The only way we'll get through to these people is by talking to them. Which we're doing.

Well, that just means more jobs for folks in the prosthetic limb industry!
That's not terribly clever. Distressing, but not clever. Hope you and yours keep all your extremities intact, DCD. Actual dismemberment is hardly a laughing matter.

Assuming we know where they are... in which case we'd send in the Marines or the Iraqi police to arrest them.

Arrest? o_O
Arrest? @_@
Wow! You're a *lot* nicer than I am. They're our enemies so as far as I'm concerned Mr. Zapgun can do all the arresting that needs to be done. The Streetcleaners can take what's left into their custody with a stick and a spoon. ;)



If I thought that by fighting the US government, I might get fried, I'd sooner blow stuff up from two klicks away than risk getting fried by that thing.

Yeah, but have you ever noticed it's not the U.S. government they fight but rather women, children and pilgrims in shrines and churches? Not exactly my idea of courage. Since they're doing that anyhow we may as well go ahead and have fun by giving them euthanasia. ^___^

I meant that the business of terrorism is one of fast-paced Darwinian theory in practice: the smartest ones will survive, the dumb ones will die off, and the smart ones will continue to be a problem.

Smartest ones IQ still < than their shoesize. If terrorists were all that bright they'd never be terrorists in the first place. Rocket scientists these people are not. :rolleyes: Keep in mind also that suicide bombers, by definition don't do a good job of passing on their genes. If the "smart" ones were all that smart they'd have better things to do with their lives than to have become terrorists in the first place. ^_~

HA! We're talking about fanatics, here.

*sigh* "fanatic" = nothing more than apatheticspeak for "anyone with a backbone". And yeah, it means that those who are religious tend to have energy, courage and even intellect that those who aren't lack but that still doesn't confer the supernatural powers that you seem to think they do. The Zulus who charged Rourke's Drift were a bunch of fanatics but at the end of the day they were nothing more than a bunch of dead Zulus. :D

More like, "Don't piss off the US government or you die."

I have no objections to their learning that lesson as well. :) Pragmatically that lesson is one and the same. ^_~

What? You think that it was the Sons of Liberty who invented the idea of flying an airliner into a building to bring it down? It was the ability of those n00bs to invent.

And *how* many women and children did the Sons of Liberty ever kill? :rolleyes: Seems to me that a few bales of tea was the biggest focus of their ire. So only a baka like Michael Moore would ever compare them to terrorists.

But let's leave that aside for the moment. It was the Japanese who invented Kamekaze pilots during WWII. If the best the widdle jihadis can do by way of "invention" is to copy an idea that's 60 years old then they really are a gang of dimwit n00bs. :D

I meant the shiney mirrors that focus and direct the laser.

And just how portable do you think these hypothetical mirrors are ever going to be? "Hey Achmed! I've got a great idea. Let's carry this 20' by 20' mirror down the streets of Baghdhad to protect us from all Lasers. Ping!" "Gee, Ali! What a great idea! Nobody will give us a second glance while we do that. Let's get a bottle of whiskey and a couple of ham sandwiches and then we're off to the jihad! Narf!"

[A couple of hours later]

"Well, Achmed! This is another fine mess you've gotten us into! :mad:"

Those terrorists ever get silly enough to do something like that then I don't think we have to worry about locating them too often. ^_~



The insurgents get in firefights with GIs, the GIs call air support, they get it in the form of a Boeing with a frickin' laser attached to its forehead. Which part of "We don't know where they are," don't you get? I mean, I'd really like to know how useful this bloody thing would be at helping us track down Osama, let alone Muhammad Terrorist, building a bomb in his backyard. My answer: Not. At. All.

Ever consider that those poor widdle jihadi sheeple are dying pretty good for people we supposedly can't locate? :) It's also actually a matter of public record that Baathists and the Al Qaeda foreign fighters are currently putting more energy into killing one another than they are into fighting Americans which means that the ones who survive turning on one another will be even easier to find. Works for me. :D

BTW, are you sure that Osama is still alive? It's entirely possible that he's gone the way I wouldn't wish on any West Virginia coal miner but sure consider satisfactory for him. The best those tape recordings supposedly by him could do was to mimic DNC talking points which seems pretty pathetic for someone *supposedly* alive. :p

The only way we'll get through to these people is by talking to them. Which we're doing.

Indeed we are. To negotiate their surrender. But having a bigger stick with which to negotiate Enever hurts the negotiations a bit. Give it time and I'm sure the ones who aren't wise enough to quit fighting now will eventually find that "everybody understands Zapgun!". ^_~

>Snip<
Indeed we are. To negotiate their surrender. But having a bigger stick with which to negotiate Enever hurts the negotiations a bit. Give it time and I'm sure the ones who aren't wise enough to quit fighting now will eventually find that "everybody understands Zapgun!". ^_~


You obviously need some history lessons in Big Stick Diplomacy. Ever hear of a little scuffle that we call the 'Vietnam War' well, back in the day, we were fighing these jungle-commies and we tried to carry a big stick to the peace table. That 'stick' was called the USS Iowa and the Vietnamese refused to even consider negotiations until it was too far away to be of any use to the American team.

ANd thats just one instance that I can think of off the top of my head.

[QUOTE=Solarlandus]


Very true. Terrorists are a pretty cowardly bunch in that regard that way. Good thing a lot of those poor fools blow themselves up while trying to make those bombs in the first place. :p


QUOTE]

Yeah and insurgents are cowardly too, not at all like the coalition of the willing who can bravely fight mano a mano from 10 miles away with laser beams via a push of the button. Automatic warfare! Pretty soon we'll just mount these on drones and we won't even deploy GI's anymore.:sniper:

Modern warfare is not about being brave (although it requieres it), if it were we would still all use swords.

You obviously need some history lessons in Big Stick Diplomacy. Ever hear of a little scuffle that we call the 'Vietnam War' well, back in the day, we were fighing these jungle-commies and we tried to carry a big stick to the peace table. That 'stick' was called the USS Iowa and the Vietnamese refused to even consider negotiations until it was too far away to be of any use to the American team.

ANd thats just one instance that I can think of off the top of my head.

A good shelling of Hanoi would probably have changed their minds. :D The Communists of that day were only able to do that because their Chinese and Russian owners also had big sticks. Your story only reinforces my point that having a bigger stick than the other guy does is always a good thing. And the bigger your stick is than any he may muster the better. Pragmatically, a diplomat is only as good as the warriors who stand behind him.

having a bigger stick than the other guy does is always a good thing. And the bigger your stick is than any he may muster the better.

I know I shouldnt but..
Heheheheheeheheheheheheheeheheheehehehehehehehehe.


Hehehehe.

Okay, slightly immature I know. But sticks are not everything, after all, ruling by fear is a bad thing right? How is ensuring co-operation by the same any better?

I know I shouldnt but..
Heheheheheeheheheheheheheeheheheehehehehehehehehe.


Hehehehe.

Okay, slightly immature I know. But sticks are not everything, after all, ruling by fear is a bad thing right? How is ensuring co-operation by the same any better?yeah... you shouldn't have...

And thus posts one who had an image of a negotiation table.

Impartial Moderator at table who is holding a ruler: "Alright before we begin... Gentleman... whip em out..."
Does some measuring.
"Ok, the US has the bigger stick, they can start first. Korea, you have to wait."
*from off on the side*
"Ey mon, my stick is beeger than that twig mon."
"But you're not participating in these negotiaions sir."
"I know mon, but I'z just saying."

But sticks are not everything, after all, ruling by fear is a bad thing right? How is ensuring co-operation by the same any better?

What is law but a spelling out of what society is willing to get violent about with its individual citizens? Since in essence a good portion of law must be founded upon "Do it this way or get your worthless butt tossed into jail or else shot!" then I would claim that *all* rule is rule by fear. Those of us who like Thomas Hobbes tend to think that way. :p

But in this case the laser is a weapon of war. And war ain't tiddlywinks. Once a war has started then imposing co-operation by fear is the best option left. That's because the only other 2 options are 1) Let the other side impose co-operation on *you* by fear (I trust you can see why this tends to be suboptimal :p ), or-r-r-r 2). Kill them them all in root or branch. :mp5: :sniper: I don't know about *you* but I consider that to be somewhat worse than imposing cooperation by fear. ^_^;

JuNi,
Heh. Good one! :D

[QUOTE=Solarlandus]


Very true. Terrorists are a pretty cowardly bunch in that regard that way. Good thing a lot of those poor fools blow themselves up while trying to make those bombs in the first place. :p


QUOTE]

Yeah and insurgents are cowardly too, not at all like the coalition of the willing who can bravely fight mano a mano from 10 miles away with laser beams via a push of the button. Automatic warfare! Pretty soon we'll just mount these on drones and we won't even deploy GI's anymore.:sniper:

Modern warfare is not about being brave (although it requieres it), if it were we would still all use swords.

Oh? More then one form of bravery. Nowhere is it written that these poor cowards couldn't get a zapgun of their own if they weren't the type to cower from cartoonists, ne? :) And what part of "modern" warfare *requires* the beheading of captive women? o_O