IMMA FIRIN' MAH LAZER

xmacro

Now those in the Navy can say this classic meme:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323820304578411163601586982.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Navy is preparing to deploy an experimental laser weapon to the Persian Gulf, where it could be used to deter Iran from using small boats to attack American warships.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the U.S. chief of naval operations, on Monday unveiled plans to place the laser cannon aboard a U.S. ship in the Gulf, where swarms of Iranian attack boats have posed a worrisome challenge for the American military.

The $40 million system will be installed aboard the USS Ponce, an amphibious assault ship used in the Gulf for mine clearance and humanitarian operations.



The Laser Weapon System, technology demonstrator built by the Naval Sea Systems Command, temporarily installed aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey in San Diego, California.

While still in development, the laser system has succeeded in destroying all 12 of its drone and small boat targets in testing, officials said. To bolster its capabilities, the Navy released a video of the laser weapon setting an aerial drone aflame and forcing it to crash into the water.

"It's kind of amazing," Adm. Greenert said in announcing the deployment plans at a convention outside Washington, D.C.

The Laser Weapon System uses directed energy to disable sensors or burn holes through a plane or ship. Because of its limited range, the weapon won't be able to target incoming missiles or jets, but it could be effective in combating Iranian fast boats and any drones the Gulf nation is developing, officials said.

The Pentagon has struggled for years to develop effective laser weapons systems, including ones mounted on planes intended to shoot down missiles. The Naval version, the first of its kind to be dispatched to the field, has more modest ambitions.

Military officials said the Persian Gulf was also an important testing ground because of its harsh physical environment.

"If it can stand up to the weather and rugged nature it can do it anywhere," said one Navy official.

The U.S. military is wary of the threat posed by small attack boats. In 2000, a small boat filled with explosives hit the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors.

Last year, a U.S. Navy supply ship opened fire on what was described as a fast-approaching boat off the United Arab Emirates coast. That craft turned out to be an Indian fishing boat, and the shooting killed an Indian fisherman. On Monday, the U.S. Navy cleared the sailors of any wrongdoing in the incident and said that they had acted properly when they opened fire.

webmost

I remember when Reagan first proposed this. Of course, everyone on the left derided him for the idea. The media dubbed it Star Wars. All my leftist family have pronounced his name Ray Gun thereafter. And now, here it is.

The big diff is that Reagan advanced the revolutionary notion that we ought to join with whoever wanted to contribute, together develop defensive weapons, make the tech available to all, thus making EVERYONE equally safe from ICBMs. Instead of Mutually Assured Destruction, have Mutually Assured Safety. That's hope. That's change.

The present paradigm is very different. Today, we want to be able to fly our assassin drones over top of everyone else while ray gunning their stuff down. Same old same old.

Neat tech tho.

Ken_Light

webmost:

I remember when Reagan first proposed this. Of course, everyone on the left derided him for the idea. The media dubbed it Star Wars. All my leftist family have pronounced his name Ray Gun thereafter. And now, here it is.

The big diff is that Reagan advanced the revolutionary notion that we ought to join with whoever wanted to contribute, together develop defensive weapons, make the tech available to all, thus making EVERYONE equally safe from ICBMs. Instead of Mutually Assured Destruction, have Mutually Assured Safety. That's hope. That's change.

The present paradigm is very different. Today, we want to be able to fly our assassin drones over top of everyone else our own citizens while ray gunning their stuff down. Same old same old. CHANGE!

Neat tech tho.

Fixed it.

webmost

CHANGE! CHAINS

raisindot

webmost:

I remember when Reagan first proposed this. Of course, everyone on the left derided him for the idea. The media dubbed it Star Wars. All my leftist family have pronounced his name Ray Gun thereafter. And now, here it is.

No, actually what Reagan proposed was COMPLETELY different than this. He wanted to spend billions and billions of dollars to put floating laser satellites in space that theoretically could blow up interballistic missiles fired from the Evil Commie Empire and its Friends.

Many people--not just the left--thought it was stupid because the minute it was deployed, after billions and billions of dollars spent to develop it, the Russkies and Chinese would quickly deploy stealth technologies they would have been developing concurrently to evade it. Or they'd deploy their own satellites to chase after ours and destroy them. Star Wars was a stupid wasteful plan then and is a stupid wasteful plan now. And increasingly irrelevant in today's post 9/11 world because if and when the terrorists do release a nuclear attack on the U.S., the bomb they use will be contained in a suitcase hidden in a box of Hello Kitty dolls smuggled through one of the millions of shipping containers that STILL remain unchecked as they come into the country.

On the other hand, the weapon in this story or used in drones is a much more cost-effective application for laser technology. Locally based, testable, and unlikely to be punked by the kinds of two-bit nations (like Iran) we'd be using it on. And it they do, we can take the existing gun back to the shop and retool it. Something we can longer do with a quickly outdated multi-billion dollar satellite since the shuttle program is shuttled.

webmost

Here we go...

fla-gypsy

It was Reagan's idea back in the 80's. Whether a satellite or on a ship, or mounted to a truck I don't care. I hope the technoogy continues to push forward to create that laser umbrella that he wanted.

Amos_Umwhat

raisindot:

if and when the terrorists do release a nuclear attack on the U.S., the bomb they use will be contained in a suitcase hidden in a box of Hello Kitty dolls smuggled through one of the millions of shipping containers that STILL remain unchecked as they come into the country.

.

I believe that this is real world thinking, ie the most probable scenario.

Amos_Umwhat

fla-gypsy:

It was Reagan's idea back in the 80's. Whether a satellite or on a ship, or mounted to a truck I don't care. I hope the technoogy continues to push forward to create that laser umbrella that he wanted.

Whatever works. Hey, think we could long distance fry a sandwich in the N. Korean leaders hand?

webmost

I am convinced that before beginning any discussion, regardless of topic, in any fora where a liberal my chance to drop in, we ought to first stipulate the following base line zealous belief: Anything which a Republican may say or which we may allege that he said is stupid, greedy, and cruel because his heart is wicked; whereas anything a Democrat may say (except for those things which we studiously ignore) is wise, altruistic, and benevolent because his, her, or it's heart is pure.

Starting with that enlightened fundamental precept we can obviously arrive at more sensible conclusions with far less unseemly friction.

Neat tech tho.

raisindot

So, apparently, according to at least one person here, anyone who disagrees with any idea proposed by a Republican or conservative must by definition be a Democrat and liberal. If so, we must then say that the reverse is true. Then, by this logic, all of the libertarians who vociferously protested Bush's wholesale suspension of people's rights to privacy and due process post 9/11 must, by definition, be Democrats and liberals. And, according to your view, any Democrats who are against Obama's use of drones to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism outside the U.S. or are against Obamacare must ipso facto be conservative Republicans. In other words, one cannot POSSIBLY express a view about an idea without being totally categorized as a liberal, Democrat, Republican or otherwise.

Wow. With such thinking I'd better be careful--I'd certainly not want to be categorized as a conservative Republican for being against some parts of Obama's gun control legislation or being in favor of some of the budgetary proposals suggested by the Republican party. I'd certainly be worried about being labelled a libertarian for opposing for Obama's support of continued monitoring of my cell phone conversations and library book borrowings. I'd never be able to show my face in a Starbucks again.

beatnic

I'm thinking that Reagan would have been laughed at and run out of town had he suggested we use drones in fighting a war. It was a different time. Conservative philosophies have not changed. Neither have Socialism's.

webmost

raisindot:

So, apparently, according to at least one person here, anyone who disagrees with any idea proposed by a Republican or conservative must by definition be a Democrat and liberal. If so, we must then say that the reverse is true. Then, by this logic, all of the libertarians who vociferously protested Bush's wholesale suspension of people's rights to privacy and due process post 9/11 must, by definition, be Democrats and liberals. And, according to your view, any Democrats who are against Obama's use of drones to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism outside the U.S. or are against Obamacare must ipso facto be conservative Republicans. In other words, one cannot POSSIBLY express a view about an idea without being totally categorized as a liberal, Democrat, Republican or otherwise.

Wow. With such thinking I'd better be careful--I'd certainly not want to be categorized as a conservative Republican for being against some parts of Obama's gun control legislation or being in favor of some of the budgetary proposals suggested by the Republican party. I'd certainly be worried about being labelled a libertarian for opposing for Obama's support of continued monitoring of my cell phone conversations and library book borrowings. I'd never be able to show my face in a Starbucks again.

Yeah, pretty much. We all get lined up on one side or the other. Warfare or welfare. Left right left right left right left right HUT! Liberty gets zero traction. You know that. The word hardly even comes up except among us loons.

But it's still neat tech. I would not doubt for a moment that they are quietly deploying this ray gun in space. Wouldn't you, if you were in charge? Go ahead, lil Kim, you test yours and we'll test ours. Iran can watch.

raisindot

beatnic:

I'm thinking that Reagan would have been laughed at and run out of town had he suggested we use drones in fighting a war. It was a different time. Conservative philosophies have not changed. Neither have Socialism's.

Perhaps they would have laughed at the idea, but only because it wasn't technically feasible in the mid 1980s. I think any politician, liberal or conservative, who recommended Star Wars or anything that seemed science fiction in nature at the time would have been laughed out of office (I can imagine the roar of laughter from all sides of the aisle if "President" Mondale or Dukakis suggested such things. Talk about your mice roaring). But certainly very few Democrats resisted Reagan's attempts to end the Cold War by outspending the Soviets militarily. Reagan certainly oversaw the largest peacetime rise in military spending since Teddy Roosevelt expanded the Navy in his presidency. Reagan certainly faced no resistance on this spending from Tip O'Neill (and why would he, considering that a lot of this spending went to defense contractors in Massachusetts) or the Democrats during that time period. Heck, even I was in favor of this at the time and I never voted for the man. Ideology really doesn't matter in times or war or threats of war. Nearly all of the major wars in the 20th century were started (or escalated) by "liberal" Democratic presidents (Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy).

beatnic

Kennedy was laughed at when he said we would put a man on the moon before the next century. And we did. We'd be nowhere without big dreamers, and they all got laughed at.

clearlysuspect

Do we really need this??? I think it's cool as hell too, but really? Does anyone here know what a Seawiz does???? Or how about 50 cal teams???

I agree, neat technology, but just another horrible waste of money by the military IMHO.