New Approach For Laser Weapons 188
An anonymous reader writes "Laser guns and other 'directed energy weapons' have remained in sci-fi lore because of their inefficiency, bulkiness, and poor beam quality. Now an MIT Lincoln Lab spinoff called TeraDiode is developing a diode laser that uses 'wavelength beam combining' to create what it calls the brightest and most powerful laser of its kind. The two-year-old company, backed by $3 million from the U.S. Department of Defense and $4 million from venture capitalists, is working on a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles. Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells. That's still at least three to five years away, but with advances in semiconductor lasers there seems to be quite a renewed interest in weaponry."
Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (Score:5, Interesting)
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
Plus, lets say for the sake of it that the laser based weapons are eventually used to kill people, what exactly is wrong with being "more efficient" about it? By "more efficient", what do you actually mean? In my mind, this means less collateral damage. I like the idea of a weapon that's powerful, yet exceptionally accurate. I like the idea of being able to pick out a target hiding in a crowd and neutralising him without toasting the person standing next to him. I also don't see that as such a terrible thing.
War is tragic, but until we have some sort of united earth, it also seems inevitable. Rather than just building bigger bombs, I'm glad someone is investing in alternative ways of fighting those wars, ways that ultimately mean less people have to die.
Re:New ways to kill people, just what the world ne (Score:2, Interesting)
if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government.
Your statement might be true if the government is distant, as in American Colonists vs George III in England. However it is untrue when the government is local, and the government officials live and work near the citizens, as in American Colonists vs George III's governors and institutions located in the colonies. Note that the American revolutionaries began by threatening the local tax collectors and such, not the king and his ministers.
A more contemporary failing of your logic would be the Arab Spring where portions of an Army with ties to the community defect when unjustly ordered to attack that community.