New Energy Weapons

[Benwa]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/directed_energy_weapons;_ylt=Au1OMclO6TlU391pDWNtw yUDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Article about our military development of Star Trek type laser weapons. :googly: You know, aren't we ever going to evolve. Our only talent as a species is our intelligence. We have no talons or fangs or scaley armor or superior senses or inate hunting skills. We have no talent except for the ability to share information and create tools. Are we ever going to decide that maybe its time we stop making new inventive ways of killing eachother? When are we going to reach the breaking point? As a follower of science I think the weapons are fascinating, but as a human being I think they are appaling. Put one on a satellite and you could vaporise a target from space with no one knowing. They are going to play up the ability for the weapon to be tuned, so it can just stun someone. But in the wrong hands? And those wrong hands are pretty much anyones hands. Because with that power, anyone would lose their head. I don't know, the article just makes me shake my head.

[embrassezla]

i work in this area, and it is somewhat of a moral dilemma for me.

on one hand, i can see how these weapons are useful and in fact necessary (albeit unfortunately) in today's society. there is a lot of development in weapons that are designed to destroy other weapons; be them chemical, biological, nuclear, or conventional. these days, no one (in the US anyway) is really trying to take out a whole city of civilians; instead, it is about very small targets - buildings housing terrorists, missile silos, etc. and the research is certainly being done to minimize collateral damage.

but on the other hand, there is ALWAYS going to be some collateral damage, and your comment about these weapons falling into the wrong hands is certainly true. my job is to make weapons that kill people, however much that is a side effect of their true purpose, and this does bother me somewhat. it's hard to say. i'm just a scientist, so i'm somewhat abstracted from all this. but still, it's sad.

then again, if this is something that can help prevent things like 9/11 or worse, then maybe i should be proud of what i do?

like i said, it's a constant moral struggle. ::shrug::

[RayJ1977]

Someone kicked my ass with new energy weapons. I have had NO energy for at least two weeks. Sleepy today....

[biodork]

More weapons of destruction, wonderful. Why not come up with better disabling weapons instead? Like I remember watching a show about how they were designing a sound weapon or something like that, that basically shoots sound waves that are meant to make you drop to the ground, but it didn't kill you (I think it was sound waves anyways)

[embrassezla]

More weapons of destruction, wonderful. Why not come up with better disabling weapons instead? Like I remember watching a show about how they were designing a sound weapon or something like that, that basically shoots sound waves that are meant to make you drop to the ground, but it didn't kill you (I think it was sound waves anyways)

what would this be effective against, in today's war climate?

the problem is escalation and deterrence. if your enemy has nukes and is likely willing to use them, something like this would not be effective. i'm sad that it's come to this, but it has. and deterrence is really the best weapon, especially if you never have to use them.

[biodork]

what would this be effective against, in today's war climate?

the problem is escalation and deterrence. if your enemy has nukes and is likely willing to use them, something like this would not be effective. i'm sad that it's come to this, but it has. and deterrence is really the best weapon, especially if you never have to use them.
In a battlefield it probably would be effective, where it's more hand to hand combat. But the way I read it from your reasoning we should just bomb them first? I just don't agree with any wars, and feel like more time should be spent on ways to deter them rather than killing more people.

[embrassezla]

In a battlefield it probably would be effective, where it's more hand to hand combat.
assuming that, say, the current war we are fighting had traditional "battlefields", this would knock out all soldiers on the field, not just the enemy. but you must be aware that this is no longer the case.

But the way I read it from your reasoning we should just bomb them first? I just don't agree with any wars, and feel like more time should be spent on ways to deter them rather than killing more people.
what part of my post led you to believe that i was implying bombing anyone first? i know this can be an emotional debate but please don't jump the gun like that. everything in my previous post came down to my belief that it is necessary, in today's war climate, to develop and maintain certain weapons as a means of deterrence. if you aren't sure exactly what that means, look up some info on the Trident weapon system developed during the cold war. what do you think would happen if the US suddenly announced that it was ending all weapon development and defense technology, in the name of peace? it's a noble cause, anyone would agree with you. but unfortunately, not an intelligent one in reality.

[biodork]

assuming that, say, the current war we are fighting had traditional "battlefields", this would knock out all soldiers on the field, not just the enemy. but you must be aware that this is no longer the case.

The show I saw the weapon was directed at a specific area, so it didn't take out everyone on the field. Basically the whole show was about weapons that took out the other person without killing them, and giving us the advantage.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you are saying, but I just think it needs to stop somewhere, and each side is just going to be making bigger and better weapons to blow each other up unless we start focusing more on stopping it, which with weapons like Benwa posted about, I think that THAT is not going to do anything to stop it.

[embrassezla]

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you are saying, but I just think it needs to stop somewhere, and each side is just going to be making bigger and better weapons to blow each other up unless we start focusing more on stopping it, which with weapons like Benwa posted about, I think that THAT is not going to do anything to stop it.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you. But unfortunately, groups like Al-Quaida aren't going to be capable of understanding this sentiment. They are so brainwashed by their religion (or bastardization thereof) that there is truly no use trying to change their mind. The only thing we can do is try to protect ourselves from them, and stop them from harming others, would you disagree?

Deterrence isn't such a bad thing - it worked for the Cold War. But groups like Al-Quaida are Darwinistic (i.e., the weak will not survive) in that they refuse to evolve in their thinking, emotions, and concept of basic human morality. How do you try to talk sense into someone who justifies strapping a bomb to their son's chest by saying he'll be met by 20 virgins in heaven?

[aj030201]

We are not at a point in evolution where Wars are obsolete. One of the following two are bound to happen sometime in the future due to technological advances and evolution:

A: We will destroy ourselves or royaly mess up the planet rendering it unlivable for humans (this one could really happen any time).

B: There will finally be a world peace (centuries down the road) can we survive to this point without a rogue nation or organization obtaining severe WMD's?

Assuming B happens, will we still need weapons? Yeah, people at one time thought they were alone on an island. They discovered other bands of people were on their same big continent and they went to war over it. Time passed and the continents discovered there were people from other continents and we went to war over that (where we are now). So when thats over, we discover there are other intelligent life forms on other planets in our galaxy, well what happened in the past, you do the math. I mean you can say you hope other civilizations would be more peaceful, they might be but you can't take that chance. And after that, the Milky Way discovers there is intelligent life in other galaxies........

Learn from the past to see the future, a benevolent ruler with a big stick carries the peace, just hope those leaders are benevolent.