Rubes Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 This is really the first I've heard much about this, but I know there are plenty of folks here that probably know a great deal about them. Coming to a (Military) Theater Near You: Directed-Energy Weapons I mean, this sounds like the stuff of science-fiction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Military officials also say more needs to be done to assure the international community that directed-energy weapons set to stun rather than kill will not harm noncombatants !@#$ing stupid. It's WAR! People die. If you don't want people to die. don't fight !@#$ing wars!!! Whoever came up with the phrase "non-lethal weapon" should be Tasered. Repeatedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 This is really the first I've heard much about this, but I know there are plenty of folks here that probably know a great deal about them. Coming to a (Military) Theater Near You: Directed-Energy Weapons I mean, this sounds like the stuff of science-fiction... 378195[/snapback] No. It's the stuff of science. It's practical application is still fiction. That is of course, until the Army rolls it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 !@#$ing stupid. It's WAR! People die. If you don't want people to die. don't fight !@#$ing wars!!! Whoever came up with the phrase "non-lethal weapon" should be Tasered. Repeatedly. 378261[/snapback] Actually, that's not entirely correct. There are excellent applications where you have bad guys mixed in with innocents, or hostages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Actually, that's not entirely correct. There are excellent applications where you have bad guys mixed in with innocents, or hostages. 378264[/snapback] Thinking an embassary or airplane takeover. Much easier to make the decision to sent troops in with ability to blast everyone as it will lower the hostage casualty rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Actually, that's not entirely correct. There are excellent applications where you have bad guys mixed in with innocents, or hostages. 378264[/snapback] I still disagree with it. The only humane way to fight a conflict is to end it as quickly as possible...and the only quick way to fight a conflict is to do it as violently as possible. All these techno-miracles that are supposed to make war more "humane" ultimately have precisely the opposite effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I still disagree with it. Well, you'd be wrong. The only humane way to fight a conflict is to end it as quickly as possible True, but resolution is more desirable, and does not necessitate fighting. ...and the only quick way to fight a conflict is to do it as violently as possible. Not only no, but hell no. I don't know where you got this from, but I encourage you to read the latest copy of the National Military Strategy, which certainly does not propose extreme violence, nor should it. All these techno-miracles that are supposed to make war more "humane" ultimately have precisely the opposite effect. 378360[/snapback] How many counter-examples would you like? I'll just give you one - GPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Not only no, but hell no. I don't know where you got this from, but I encourage you to read the latest copy of the National Military Strategy, which certainly does not propose extreme violence, nor should it. At least SOMEONE is doing their homework. The best way to end a war is not to have one in the first place, and still get your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I still disagree with it. The only humane way to fight a conflict is to end it as quickly as possible...and the only quick way to fight a conflict is to do it as violently as possible. All these techno-miracles that are supposed to make war more "humane" ultimately have precisely the opposite effect. 378360[/snapback] Remember that statement should there be a "Homeland Defense" type of requirement someday. Nothing like carpet bombing West Seneca, Junction City, Chico or Tallahassee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Thinking an embassary or airplane takeover. Much easier to make the decision to sent troops in with ability to blast everyone as it will lower the hostage casualty rates. 378308[/snapback] The first thought that came to my mind were the Russian school and theater hostage situations.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 This is really the first I've heard much about this, but I know there are plenty of folks here that probably know a great deal about them. Coming to a (Military) Theater Near You: Directed-Energy Weapons I mean, this sounds like the stuff of science-fiction... 378195[/snapback] Pretty much old hat, Rubes. Brookhaven Labs on Long Island NY have been working on such for a couple of decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 !@#$ing stupid. It's WAR! People die. If you don't want people to die. don't fight !@#$ing wars!!! Whoever came up with the phrase "non-lethal weapon" should be Tasered. Repeatedly. 378261[/snapback] Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit the number of casualties as much as possible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit the number of casualties as much as possible! 378659[/snapback] Uhhh...that's what I'm saying. You don't limit casualties by fighting "nice" wars. You limit them by fighting with overwhelming force and ending them quickly. The protracted use of limited force has killed more people in warfare than the rapid use of overwhelming force. Doesn't mean you're indiscriminate about it, either...but it DOES mean that using this non-lethal nonsense to make wars kinder and gentler is going to have the opposite effect. War is brutal, bloody, and inhumane...but a war prosecuted by half-measures is even moreso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Uhhh...that's what I'm saying. You don't limit casualties by fighting "nice" wars. You limit them by fighting with overwhelming force and ending them quickly. The protracted use of limited force has killed more people in warfare than the rapid use of overwhelming force. Doesn't mean you're indiscriminate about it, either...but it DOES mean that using this non-lethal nonsense to make wars kinder and gentler is going to have the opposite effect. War is brutal, bloody, and inhumane...but a war prosecuted by half-measures is even moreso. 378666[/snapback] I'm thinking in terms of "the new war" where you have small targets intermingled with delicate infrastructure and possibly large civilian populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I'm thinking in terms of "the new war" where you have small targets intermingled with delicate infrastructure and possibly large civilian populations. 378679[/snapback] This from a person who wiped out IOWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 This from a person who wiped out IOWA 378689[/snapback] 1. That was an accident. 2. I said LARGE civilian populations. 3. Nobody's noticed yet, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I'm thinking in terms of "the new war" where you have small targets intermingled with delicate infrastructure and possibly large civilian populations. 378679[/snapback] And don't think that's not in the back of my mind when I type all this. The necessity is obvious...but it's also uncomfortably like Clinton's infamous "operations other than war" mental oatmeal. Ideally, the military fights wars in order to win them as quickly and humanely as possible, and pansy-assing with qualifiers like "operations other than war" or "non-lethal combat" is not only cruel, but is indicative of a military being used for other than its core purpose (much as it is now in Iraq, which is why I was against the goddamned war in the first place. I'm nothing if not consistent. ) However, I recognize that we do NOT live in an ideal world, and allowances must be made (which is why I don't B word about the occupation of Iraq. ) My biggest fear, actually, is that there's enough lunatics in high office (and even high in command, judging by some of the previous administration's appointees and their decisions - "We'll all wear SF berets, because we're all special!" ) that actually think pansy-assing the military can lead to "gentle" or "polite" or "humane" warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 And don't think that's not in the back of my mind when I type all this. 378737[/snapback] Indeed but no forthcoming loose lips please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 And don't think that's not in the back of my mind when I type all this. The necessity is obvious...but it's also uncomfortably like Clinton's infamous "operations other than war" mental oatmeal. Ideally, the military fights wars in order to win them as quickly and humanely as possible, and pansy-assing with qualifiers like "operations other than war" or "non-lethal combat" is not only cruel, but is indicative of a military being used for other than its core purpose (much as it is now in Iraq, which is why I was against the goddamned war in the first place. I'm nothing if not consistent. ) However, I recognize that we do NOT live in an ideal world, and allowances must be made (which is why I don't B word about the occupation of Iraq. ) My biggest fear, actually, is that there's enough lunatics in high office (and even high in command, judging by some of the previous administration's appointees and their decisions - "We'll all wear SF berets, because we're all special!" ) that actually think pansy-assing the military can lead to "gentle" or "polite" or "humane" warfare. 378737[/snapback] Don't misjudge "Operations Other Than War". That phrase frameworks his PDD56, which was the first document that actually tried to codify an interagency military/political approach to solving a problem (in this case, Bosnia). Flawed, but a start. You probably don't want me on my interagency cooperation bandwagon, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Looks like I'm going to have to start wrapping 2 layers of tin foil around my head as opposed to the usual 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts