Charge ion cannons.

Pages

AuthorTopic: Charge ion cannons.
Warrior
Member # 37
Profile #0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/

quote:
There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching — and at the speed of light, no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons," and they may well signal a revolution in military hardware — perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.

Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too.
1. Bild Lazar
2. Pres butan
3. ...
4. Profit!

--------------------
Pushing the hermaphroditism evolution agenda...one botched genetics experiment at a time.
Posts: 179 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5566
Profile #1
..... Amazing!... Scary!.... Fricken cool!
Posts: 507 | Registered: Tuesday, March 1 2005 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5991
Profile Homepage #2
I've heard of weapons like these.Plus even stranger ones like a Sonic Wave that can render an entire cities population to be nauseated until the weapon is turned off.Others are Waves that will destroy anything that is organic,but whether this is just rumors or not may not be known for a long time.

EDIT: We need a spell check for people like me who forget how to type some words!!

[ Monday, January 23, 2006 16:15: Message edited by: The Dark Crusader ]

--------------------
George Bush is a Nazi - Eric Cartmen

I'm not as think you stoned I am
Visit the RIFQ Forums
Posts: 462 | Registered: Tuesday, June 21 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #3
Is there any particular breakthrough that makes directed energy weapons imminent instead of the same ongoing research project that they've been for years?

—Alorael, who is always fascinated by the progress of weaponry. After demolishing enormous areas of the Earth's surface and rendering them uninhabitable for extremely long periods became easy, suddenly lower yield weapons were needed.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #4
quote:
Originally from the article:"Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future."
That's what people said about dynamite. And the atomic bomb. Heck, people probably said that about the invention of bronze. Haven't people realized that making war more deadly doesn't deter people? It just makes it more deadly!

quote:
Originally from the article:"History has shown that, without investment in high technology, fighting the next war will be done using the 'last war' type of technique,"
quote:
Originally from the article:"It’s a matter of priority," Beason said. The time is now to identify high-payoff, directed-energy projects for the smallest amounts of money, he said.
As if it wasn't bad enough, it's always about the money... what ever happened to killing people for the sake of killing people?

This kind of stuff honestly scares me.

[ Monday, January 23, 2006 16:46: Message edited by: Ephesos ]

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 34
Profile Homepage #5
A big hoy-hoy for new and more efficient ways to kill ourselves! Hoorah!

Hare Krishna.

--------------------
Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.

'Spiderweb Software' anagrammmed: 'Word-bereft A**wipe'
Posts: 702 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #6
Originally by Ephesos:

quote:
quote:
Originally from the article:"Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future."
That's what people said about dynamite. And the atomic bomb. Heck, people probably said that about the invention of bronze. Haven't people realized that making war more deadly doesn't deter people? It just makes it more deadly!
Thus changing the way the war is fought by making it even more deadly. What do you expect? Now that industrialized countries can avoid deaths by disease, there has to be something to keep the casualties high.

Dikiyoba.
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #7
Death rates have significantly decreased since that period of time, even with nuclear weapons. The ability to kill people without being anywhere near them may be scary, but this kind of technology would probably be put to far better use than killing individuals; intercepting missiles, for instance, or possibly disabling hijacked airplanes (I'm completely making that but, but it seems like there should be some way to slow a hijacked airplane without destroying it...). Also, I'm liking the other notable route this technology is taking - using pain and nausea to disable attackers. Sure, it could be devestating in the wrong hands, but then, so could every modern weapon.

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

Polaris = joy.

In case of emergency, break glass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #8
Optimism is fine, but then again large amounts of power have that way of turning all hands that hold them into the wrong ones. Or in other words, most countries either interested or potentially able to build such weapons shouldn't really be trusted with them - Iran, the US, Russia, China, Israel...

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

That's what people said about dynamite. And the atomic bomb. Heck, people probably said that about the invention of bronze. Haven't people realized that making war more deadly doesn't deter people? It just makes it more deadly!

Depressingly, most people do not realize this because they are too busy saying things like

quote:
Originally written by Hawk King:

..... Amazing!... Scary!.... Fricken cool!


--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 5566
Profile #9
quote:
Originally written by Arancaytar:

[QBDepressingly, most people do not realize this because they are too busy saying things like

quote:
Originally written by Hawk King:

..... Amazing!... Scary!.... Fricken cool!
[/QB]
I really only added the "fricken cool" part because well when a saw those word's first thing to hit my head was 'star wars' but upon further thought i imagined how it would feel to suddenly be obliterated/ struck with nausea/ and whatever else there was, and i realized that it is absolutely horrible forget the whole "wrong hand's thing" all hand's are the "wrong hand's" sorry for my first post i offer no explanation other than that was my first thought.
Posts: 507 | Registered: Tuesday, March 1 2005 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Originally written by Hawk King:

sorry for my first post i offer no explanation other than that was my first thought.
Fair enough... I think the sarcasm was rather evident in it, personally.

Everyone's hands = wrong hands? Sounds about right to me... what's the current ratio of people who use these things for good to people who use them for evil/extortion/etc?

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #11
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:
Originally written by Hawk King:

sorry for my first post i offer no explanation other than that was my first thought.
Fair enough... I think the sarcasm was rather evident in it, personally.

Everyone's hands = wrong hands? Sounds about right to me... what's the current ratio of people who use these things for good to people who use them for evil/extortion/etc?

Unfortunately, I've spent far too much time on forums where some people *do* think like that, without sarcasm, in all seriousness, and not just in the first impulse. "Big guns = awesome."

Unsurprisingly, these are the same who also argue against gun control.

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 37
Profile #12
I'm just afraid of what the major corporations will do when they get ahold of this "Voice From The Sky" atmospheric sound wave laser technology.

Imagine the voice of God commanding you, "THOU SHALT DRINK PEPSI."

--------------------
Pushing the hermaphroditism evolution agenda...one botched genetics experiment at a time.
Posts: 179 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by Justiciar Hablion:

Imagine the voice of God commanding you, "THOU SHALT DRINK PEPSI."
That is, if the whole "cutting ads into the surface of the moon" idea doesn't pan out first...

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #14
Don't forget the whole "cutting ads into the cornea" thing. Makes you think about laser surgery in a whole new way....

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #15
Energy-based superweapons aren't really all that scary. Nuclear weapons are just about the maximum of scary already. My worries are that clean and remote fighting will destigmatize the horrors of war because those horrors won't be inflicted on the side using the best and brightest technology, but this is more a concern for unmanned vehicles and such than new weapons.

On the other hand, non-lethal weapons are good. Sure, they might make governments hesitate less before using force against people who really don't deserve it, but we've already seen how the necessity of lethal force doesn't always stop anybody. Just look at Tiananmen. Pain and nausea for crowd control are preferable.

—Alorael, who isn't aware of any new tools to stop hijacked airplanes. People are easy to deter, but massive objects have too much inertia to easily stop physically. Even if you do stop an airplane, it just plummets. Instead, the easiest solution would be to destroy airplanes before impact, and that's quite possible already.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Guardian
Member # 6670
Profile Homepage #16
Brief history of advances in technology:

Build house with rocks -> Build wall with rocks -> Throw rocks at people
Make art with bronze -> Make shield with bronze -> Make sword with bronze
Create energy with uranium -> Create sub using uranium -> Create bomb with uranium

What next: Invent oven that uses microwaves -> Invent riot-control device that uses microwaves -> Invent direct-energy weapon

It's inevitable. No matter what area we progress in, we find a way to turn it into a weapon.

--------------------
I attack the darkness!
- The Dead Alewives
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #17
Weapons causing mass nausea are better than weapons causing mass burns and shrapnel wounds.

And nuclear weapons did make the world more peaceful. Some people think that the only reason we didn't have World War III is that leaders of USA and USSR weren't too excited by the prospect of living the rest of their lives in underground bunkers. (Both sides in the Cold War had enough weapons to eliminate all human life on Earth's surface.) The border between India and Pakistan also became more peaceful after both sides got nukes.

The nice thing about nuclear weapons is that they are so hard to manufacture that anybody rich enough to get hold of them has a lot to lose if this planet becomes uninhabitable. This goes for people like Bin Laden as well. Note that he is not too eager to put on a suicide bomber's belt himself.

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

Everyone's hands = wrong hands? Sounds about right to me... what's the current ratio of people who use these things for good to people who use them for evil/extortion/etc?
One man's "good" is another man's "evil".

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #18
quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

Brief history of advances in technology:

Build house with rocks -> Build wall with rocks -> Throw rocks at people
Make art with bronze -> Make shield with bronze -> Make sword with bronze
Create energy with uranium -> Create sub using uranium -> Create bomb with uranium

I think the order here is probably exactly backwards, except that a self-sustaining but non-explosive nuclear reaction was created shortly before the first atomic bomb. Since Fermi's experiment was a deliberate step towards making a bomb (part of the Manhattan project), rather than an attempt to generate power, even this is debatable. So a good case could be made from history that better swords get beaten into better plowshares, rather than the other way round.

Anyway, directed energy weapons have a basic problem. Lasers as weapons are just another way of delivering kinetic energy to a target, by using photons as bullets -- a whole lot of really tiny bullets. But imagine you have to shoot a bear with a shotgun. Would you rather fire a slug, or a shellful of fine sand? Atoms and photons have even less penetrating power, relative to their energy, than the finest sand.

Of course you can compensate by using a powerful enough beam, just as you could red mist the bear with a big enough blast of fine sand. But you have to ask, Why do it the hard way?
I think the most effective directed energy weapon is going to remain the directed kinetic energy of a bullet, for a good long time to come.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #19
quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

Create energy with uranium -> Create sub using uranium -> Create bomb with uranium

You have this backwards. The nuclear submarine program, established by Admiral Rickover, came after the nuclear weapon was developed.

Although Fermi did build a crude reactor (called an atomic pile at the time), it only generated fission (and hence heat) for the production of plutonium for the Fat Man bomb.

Real nuclear power (in the US) was a direct consequence of Admiral Rickover and the nuclear submarine program. The first US pilot plant, Shipping Port, was largely designed by US Naval Reactors. So nuclear power as we think of it today was last out of the three.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #20
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Anyway, directed energy weapons have a basic problem. Lasers as weapons are just another way of delivering kinetic energy to a target, by using photons as bullets -- a whole lot of really tiny bullets. But imagine you have to shoot a bear with a shotgun. Would you rather fire a slug, or a shellful of fine sand?
...
But you have to ask, Why do it the hard way?
I think the most effective directed energy weapon is going to remain the directed kinetic energy of a bullet, for a good long time to come.

I'm pretty sure directed-energy is all about delivering heat and energy, not about physically stopping them. So it's more like asking if you'd rather shoot the bear with a slug or burn a hole through his stomach. Which may actually depend on your objectives.

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #21
quote:
Originally written by Localized Unreality Distortion:

Energy-based superweapons aren't really all that scary. Nuclear weapons are just about the maximum of scary already. My worries are that clean and remote fighting will destigmatize the horrors of war because those horrors won't be inflicted on the side using the best and brightest technology, but this is more a concern for unmanned vehicles and such than new weapons.
Will?

--------------------
Encyclopaedia ErmarianaForum ArchivesForum StatisticsRSS [Topic / Forum]
My BlogPolarisI eat novels for breakfast.
Polaris is dead, long live Polaris.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6234
Profile #22
quote:
Originally written by Dintiradan:

Brief history of advances in technology:

Build house with rocks -> Build wall with rocks -> Throw rocks at people
Make art with bronze -> Make shield with bronze -> Make sword with bronze
Create energy with uranium -> Create sub using uranium -> Create bomb with uranium

What next: Invent oven that uses microwaves -> Invent riot-control device that uses microwaves -> Invent direct-energy weapon

Of course will people allways invent weapons... it's in their nature. But in a sick, twisted way, people have become a bit nicer in the way of making and designing weapons. Take a gun and a axe, for example. One shot with a gun thru your head, and you're dead... An axe however, was used a long time ago. Killing someone with an axe would be a much slower and painfuller death. I might sound sick and twisted, but in a way it's true. But people still make sick weapons, like bombs. Those kill to many people. It sounds stupid and childish, but it's true.

EDIT: Fixed quote

[ Wednesday, January 25, 2006 00:34: Message edited by: Clemens ]

--------------------
There are 400 words in the dictionary that begin with "self" and only 8 that begin with "fellow".

When in doubt. . . mumble.
Posts: 150 | Registered: Saturday, August 20 2005 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #23
quote:
Originally written by SNM:

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Anyway, directed energy weapons have a basic problem. Lasers as weapons are just another way of delivering kinetic energy to a target, by using photons as bullets -- a whole lot of really tiny bullets. But imagine you have to shoot a bear with a shotgun. Would you rather fire a slug, or a shellful of fine sand?
...
But you have to ask, Why do it the hard way?
I think the most effective directed energy weapon is going to remain the directed kinetic energy of a bullet, for a good long time to come.

I'm pretty sure directed-energy is all about delivering heat and energy, not about physically stopping them. So it's more like asking if you'd rather shoot the bear with a slug or burn a hole through his stomach. Which may actually depend on your objectives.

Bullets also kill by delivering energy, not by 'stopping' the target. A bullet from a high-powered rifle goes right through a person, but it doesn't just drill a thin hole: it makes a big splash inside as it passes. This energy transfer is what makes a bullet an effective weapon, and in this sense bullets and photons are doing the same job. But the bullet will also go through trees, body armor, brick walls, truck doors, etc. -- not to mention rain and dust and smoke and fog -- and still kill afterwards. It can push obstacles out of the way, at a relatively low cost in energy. A laser beam has to vaporize obstacles, which takes a lot more power.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Guardian
Member # 6670
Profile Homepage #24
Apologies for reporting subjective history.

I merely was pointing out how any advance in technology can be corrupted.

(For the record though, I am all for microwave riot control. Much better than tear gas or rubber bullets)

--------------------
Famous Last Words: I attempt to disbelieve.
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00

Pages