Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Apparently pretty soon!

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/will-new-laser.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/solid-state-las.html

Nifty stuff making me hope we too will be able to heat up our soup with our weapons of war fairly soon.

I shot a mauser broomhandle yesterday (care of Inquisitor Bob). If I make the pew pew noises does that count as a plasma pistol? Hey if its good enough for Han Solo, its good enough for me.

Heheh only if it has a 1 in 6 chance of melting your hand off. That would be some scary pew pew.

I secretly love the "plausible deniability" on the aieral laser attacks. Because, you know, if someone suddenly spontaneously combusts due to being shot by a laser from 50 miles away, there is no telling what country pulled the trigger. That could be anyone with a 50 bajillion dollar space laser!

So when do WE get Str3 AP- lasguns?

Wood Elfs won't get S3 lasguns they have bows.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

So when do WE get Str3 AP- lasguns?

Wood Elfs won't get S3 lasguns they have bows.

I had the exact same reaction when I saw the subject line...

*L* ok ok, I suppose "OMG High altitude lasers capable of incinerating people (or not!) are really not that far off!" would have been a better title, but it is a little long. :-P

Still, even if I can't get a big laser on a plane, I want the gun.

So is that highly detailed illustration supposed to be taken seriously?

can it kill people?

Sorry for the rant, but..

I find it amazing that they can hit the antenna of a tank from several kilometers away. Travelling at the speed of light or not, thats nothing to be scoffed at.

However the implications of this are a bit scary - traditionally the enemy has usually been able to fight back to a degree, but being instantly killed by something that you cannot see, let alone defend yourself against, coupled with the idea of zero responsibility seems to upset the balance of warfare. Call me old fashioned or naive, but I believe that the target should at least have some chance to defend themselves, not just unavoidably microwaved from afar.

I cannot shrug the feeling that the balance of power in the world will be completely destroyed with something like this. Those who cannot pay the billions of dollars neccesary to use this technology will be quickly left behind, and no small countries will be able to stand up to countries with this kind of technology. Sure, it may limit killing in the short term - but is a world with one ruler truly better than a world in conflict?

Eventually this type of technology may be "banned" by the UN, like the other superweapon of its time - the atomic bomb, but I dont think that this is the way forward for the world.

This kind of technology may be cool in games and warhammer, but it seems like a bad idea in real life. We're just one step closer to exterminatus...

@ Squig_Herder: Yes, yes it can.

Target effects will include instantaneous burst-combustion of insurgent clothing, a rapid death through violent trauma, and more probably a morbid combination of both. It is estimated that the aftermath of a sub-second engagement by PASDEW [Precision Airborne Standoff Directed Energy Weapon] will also be an observable event leaving an impression of terrifyingly precise CF [Coalition Force] attribution in the minds of all witnesses.

I think something like that could just as easily be surreptitiously used on the citizenry of a state as a means of control. I can't shake a sense of dishonor and creepiness when thinking about this

Las-cannons cool... now we just have to get them from the 747 size down to man portable. The biggest hold up is power, a 747 filled with batters can only fire the laser like 7 or 8 times. I think to see lasers scaled down we need batteries with really high energy density. We'll probably see lasers on vehicles at first then eventually shoulder missile launcher size. A laser assault rifle doesn't make to much sense cause a weapon that makes a minimal amount of noise isn't going to work for suppressing fire... sniper rifles on the other hand.

Squig_herder wrote:can it kill people?

I've seen this before on TV, the laser can cut through a foot of armor grade steel in like 2/10th of a second. Its part of that whole missile shield the US govt is working on. These lasers are originally designed to shoot down missiles and have correcting lenses to deal with atmospheric effects on the laser beams. The smaller gunship sized one is suppose to shoot smaller surface to air missiles down, so its not as powerful. To answer your question on killing people... how well do you hold up relative to that steel?

blinky wrote:
I cannot shrug the feeling that the balance of power in the world will be completely destroyed with something like this. Those who cannot pay the billions of dollars neccesary to use this technology will be quickly left behind, and no small countries will be able to stand up to countries with this kind of technology. Sure, it may limit killing in the short term - but is a world with one ruler truly better than a world in conflict?

But it won't be, insurgents with AKs can give a solid fight against tanks that can kill miles away and choppers that are spotted for by other units. No matter the technology there will be a counter of some kind that keeps one power from rising as it will be too expensive to used widespread.

snooggums wrote:
No matter the technology there will be a counter of some kind...

Giant Mirrors

The main difference between this and say, a tank, is that this is an extreme precision weapon. All a plane has to do is fly over enemy territory, and they can easily assassinate a leader that only has to step out in the open. Whereas a tank would have no method of gaining access to said leader. The plane could do off with the one guy, no collateral damage, and no responsibility.

Luckily as you said, this is unlikely to be an extremely widespread weapon.

The technology already exists.

It is already banned.

Forget killing lasers, the real power of a laser is for destroying retinas, which they can dio for a fraction of the power and time. a sweeping laser can conceivably permenantly blind large numbers of people at once.

Its an especially nasty weapon as it is highly indiscriminate and can cover large distances. There are countermeasures, but they are expensive.

The technology was developed in several countries, particularly the USA and Soviet Union. It was banned by the UN after an extensive campaign by the Red Cross.

The only nation with an active program for blinding lasers is Israel, who took over the US blinding laser program. The fact that blinding lasers are banned does'ny matter much to Israeli policy makers.

Most information on blinding lasers can be obtained by the ICRC, other sources are not speaking much.

Orlanth wrote:.

Forget killing lasers, the real power of a laser is for destroying retinas, which they can dio for a fraction of the power and time. a sweeping laser can conceivably permenantly blind large numbers of people at once.

Its an especially nasty weapon as it is highly indiscriminate and can cover large distances. There are countermeasures, but they are expensive.

Sunglasses?

So does that mean Putin will start wearing his sunglasses at night?

snooggums wrote:

Sunglasses?

Sort of. The beans were spilled on this in c1982 in National Geographic magazine. Ceramics exist that are transparent when a current is passed through them. Intense light disrupts the current causing the ceramic lens to darken instantly. It's probably secret now, but back then it was public domain as laser weaponry were not a current issue. The special goggles could be used to look at a nuclear explosion. That was the example given. I remembered this article and applied it to laser weaponry when reports started filtering in in the press in the early 90's.

blinky wrote:The plane could do off with the one guy, no collateral damage, and no responsibility.

I agree with the first two points (though they make me say "Good!" as opposed "Oh noes!") but the last I gotta disagree with.

I am fairly certain there will be ZERO plausible deniability for whoever fields this bad boy until lots of people have them. When Bhat Gu'Hai suddenly burst into flames and explodes for no apparent reason, I suspect everyone will know who did it.

I am, however, looking forward to seeing a DoD guy at a press conference saying "Hey, that could have been ANYONE'S high altitude super laser!"

Sort of sounds like someone missed the point when they were watching Real Genius.

Wehrkind wrote:

I am fairly certain there will be ZERO plausible deniability for whoever fields this bad boy until lots of people have them. When Bhat Gu'Hai suddenly burst into flames and explodes for no apparent reason, I suspect everyone will know who did it.

I agree that there is no chance that they will have any deniability at the moment, but later on, once the technology becomes cheaper (its the cheapest technology in the 41st century, so its gotta go down soon ), then it will have pretty good deniability. The reason behind this is that there is so little proof behind anyones argument. Unlike conventional weapons, there is no specific signature (that we know of) that can be used to identify the user. At the moment, i dont think that its anything to worry about, but if these become cheap as chips (IG im looking at you) then we may have a problem.

Of course the counter argument to this, is the fact that it is extremely precise, so will have no collateral damage, which can only be a good thing.

Edit: And to my first two points, i agree that they are good, although collateral damage is one of the main reasons that you dont see political leaders getting blown up all the time. Giving us an option to kill them, and only them makes for a perfect assasination. Too many assasinations end up causing global unrest, chaos ensues, Mutually assured destruction, everything dies, some guy rises up, creates Space marines etc.. Im sure you all know the story now