OK, who want's to be next?

Me!

It's about dang time we were developing and deploying things like this.

But then 100KW doesn't seem like a tremendous amount of power to me. Shoot, I've worked on 150KW induction heaters (used for heat-treating steel) and seen 500KW units. I'm surprised that military-grade lasers are only 100KW--but then, I don't know much about lasers.

#2 (the new #2),
[Demonic cackling]

:-P

Oh, btw...THIRD!!!

Golly, I feel SO special now...

But then 100KW doesn't seem like a tremendous amount of power to me. Shoot, I've worked on 150KW induction heaters

Imagine that much energy concentrated on 1 square millimeter.

I wonder system from Traveller we'll develop next. God, I hope it's jump drive. Fusion power would be good, too, though.

U.S. troops using lasers? You know what that means, don't you? Coming soon to an anti-war poster near you.

But can it play the new high-definition CD's?

Hey, how about them X-ray goggles? ;-)

After watching the army armored column advance into the heart of Baghdad live, before they swung west to the airport, I thought I was seeing star wars technology already. The sheer power and invincibility of their advance was viscerally stunning.

Mile after mile there was continuous and furious fire from the double columns advancing on the freeway, and as they passed you just saw endless scenes of Iraqi armor along with support vehicles and technicals either on fire, smoking after incineration, blown to smithereens, or totally disabled and abandoned. Hidden behind palm trees, in gullies and revetments, and sometimes out in the open, every single opposition piece of war just taken clean out of the equation.

It was quite surreal. Most of the palm trees didn't even appear to have sustained much damage, if at all, and civilian targets like buildings, walls and other infrastructure had hardly been touched.

As a Vietnam era vet, that level of dominance in battle was beyond breathtaking to me; it bordered on god-like.

Also, it's got to be noted that this 100KW is supposed to be portable atop tanks or a dedicated vehicle. The game I've been playing for the past 1 1/2 month is Command & Conquer: General, which features one such device atop a tank to shoot down anti-tank missles.

I wonder if it can eventually be adapted for passenger jets as protection from surface-to-air missiles.

This is why America is the best country. We have cool toys like these lasers. Ha! Take that, communism. America still kicks ass for other reasons, but this is still pretty damn cool. And intimidating.

Cheers,
Jordan

God its good to be American.

Is this the same system that is to be mounted on converted civ. jets to shoot down ICBMs?

I remember seeing a article about that last month. Looked like a 747 with a GIANT nose cone thingy.

Oh, but some would disagree:

"Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my God, you're insulting me.' That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, 'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."

Quoth Ms. Janeane Garafolo. That dumb bitch. Sorry, it's just that I've got this, oh, I don't know, REVERENCE, for the flag of the greatest country that ever was, and the thought of some bastard or bastardess burning makes me want to cry first, and then start throwing bricks. Ms. Garafalo, your existence insults my perception of a benevolent universe. Crawl on glass.

#15 Thats the ABL, airborne laser. Its a different system. Much more powerful and ready much sooner. First prototype tests of the ABL are due this summer. This is the ABL website.

The system discussed in the article is related to what the Army plans for its next generation tank. The Abrams will be the last American tank with a conventional chemical explosive weapon. The next gen armored vehicle will have a directed energy weapon like this laser, or a mass driver weapon (kinetic weapon electrically accelerated to about 25000 mph) if the laser isnt ready. And the EUroweenies think they have any chance of equally the U.S.

There is a new weasel though, and boy am I surprised (not.) I've been expecting this.

<Dr. Evil> They use "lay-zers"! </Dr. Evil>

This is old news. My Younger sister's now ex-husband was working on this in the mid seventies at the Lawrence Livermoore Labs. The Laser was operational in 1997, capable of boring a hole through an Abrams tank. the problem then was that they had no "portable" source of power for it. At the time he said they expected that to be resolved in "few years". Portable meant something could be loaded onto a plane- like a C130.

This laser was reported publically last fall, you can find it on slashdot.org.

ANd to think, teddy kennedy claimed star wars was the figment of an old man's (Reagan) imagination, well, Ronnie was right, once again. And yes, the research was funded by Reagan's 'star wars" defense initiative.

the government announced last fall it would be made available on C130's In a "few more years"- around 2010. Given that he said a "few years" in 1997, my guess is we have something now that will function on a battle field. i say that based on the fact that the Government never reveals anything ahead of time.

The way it works is by splitting the beam, then recombining it using mirrors, once it recombines into a single beam, it's power has been greatly increased. That's simplified, of course, but at the time I saw the drawings in 1997, that's all the more I could guess, and all the more he could nod too. fun stuff!

#12 JD: A worthy idea, but I'm against it on principle. Our airliners' defense should be the offense of the US military responding to anyone who'd harm us.

RightisRight: I saw that on Discovery or some such. I want to say it's chemically powered, and perhaps a stronger output. It was mighty cool!

They're also developing laser weapons for jet fighters, which in addition to the offensive improvement would enable some targets to be taken out or disabled with much less collateral damage. Imagine taking out the engine compartment of a vehicle only!

And yet, an article on this in a scientific magazine (wanna say Popular Mechanics) went off on how it was theoretically possible that a missed or reflected beam might blind someone! No, not just the factual possibility, but it started sounding like full Dashlesque hand-wringing weepiness! I wrote 'em to ask if instead we could convert the weapon to send out harmless rainbows and have the chaff dispensers parachute puppies and kittens down to the populace below. Sheesh!

Laser cannons?? It's like C&C Renegade writ large??

Aaah, it's gonna be good to be a soldier... ;)

I was reading today (I can't find the article via Google News) that DoD is expecting to be able to mount BIG lasers (bigger than these 100kW doohickies) and rail guns on DD(X) and CVN(X) ships by 2010.

That was an eye-opener.

The 747 jet referred to is the ABL, which is not a solid-state laser (it's a chemical iodine laser). Meaning, it's a wee bit too big to fit on a Humvee.

Note too that Israel has already successfully field-tested the joint US/Israel THEL system against the sort of small rockets of the type routinely launched into the northern end of the country. The tests included multiple simultaneous launches. This system is apparently built into one or two shipping containers, and is portable, on demand, via standard military cargo vehicles.

Oh, but wait! This is "Star Wars" technology! Silly me...everyone knows that stuff doesn't work. (snicker)

#20-

theoretically possible that a missed or reflected beam might blind someone! No, not just the factual possibility, but it started sounding like full Dashlesque hand-wringing

The hand wringing is because it is against the Geneva Convention to intentionally blind someone. the whole thing was argued over intensly on slashdot. It is "ok" if blind tehm as an accident of war with a weapon whos primary purpose is not in blinding them.

the pwoer source for these were immense in 1997, it was a question of miniturization that makes it battlefield ready- not the laser, the ppower source.

#3-

But then 100KW doesn't seem like a tremendous amount of power to me. Shoot, I've worked on 150KW induction heaters (used for heat-treating steel) and seen 500KW units.

See #19

Man, I can't wait til we get a missle defense system. Keeping up with the Joneses in that dept. isn't a game the Euros, Russians or Chinese want to play. Although the Chinese do have some interesting ideas on fighting against the US. Too bad they seem to be planning around us treating them with kid gloves like we did with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Robert Brandtjen: You're more generous than I in thinking these guys were arguing the Geneva convention without bothering to read it and not even worrying about the difference between intentional and unintentional. Sure, some will, but many are simply hatefully prejudiced against anything that strengthens the US and will latch on to any argument, even knowing that it's a false one.

In fact, a trip to Slashdot is usually a pretty discouraging thing, considering the technical nature of the audience. Sometimes I look inside computers expecting to see a graham cracker motherboard with yarn, glitter and a smiley-face sticker glued to it considering the logic-immune leftism so rampant there.

Only problem I see is that it won't be ready until 2010. I'm afraid we might need it before then.

With the military, take the "ready" date, drop 5-10 years off of it, that is the operation date. It isn't always the case, but most of the time it is true.

Model4:

Sometimes I look inside computers expecting to see a graham cracker motherboard with yarn, glitter and a smiley-face sticker glued to it considering the logic-immune leftism so rampant there.

Ah. You haven't seen the machines I have to use at work. I'd be thrilled if they were packed with jam.

kathyn:

Only problem I see is that it won't be ready until 2010. I'm afraid we might need it before then.

The JSTAR surveillance plane wasn't supposed to be ready until the mid-90s, but saw service in 1991. Sometimes the in-service date includes the time it takes to roll the system out to most of the units and develop the doctrine for using it in combat.

I wouldn't be surprised if the ABL was in position over Israel, waiting for Scuds, over the last month. It may be "experimental", but if it could do the job...

Model4-

I agree on slashdot, I have horrible "kharma" there. I know most people hate us just to hate us. I experienced it first hand long ago,now, in college.

As far as the missile defense thing and the inevitable Sino-American conflict, I invision (i hope im right for my children's sake) the US taking out their missiles with our new lasers- at the moment, according to my former LLL contact, they aren't fast enough for jets as yet, but they eventually will be. After ward, we can bomb the chinese into the stone age at our will, the Japanese will be safe, can't say about Sth korea, but what the hell.

china should have been dealt with long ago, they never should have been allowed to develop long range missiles (thanks bill and hitlery clinton) that are now targeted at the US. China has been responsible for the spread of this misile technology and nukes to the 3rd world. A pre-emptive strike was in order around 1951, if not sooner. I do not believe in allowing one's enemies the luxury of developing technology which has the capacity of whiping us out at long distance. I'm also not fool enough to believe they suddenly liked us. Nor would I have allowed their exchange students into our country in order for them to take engineering classes- national security issues aside, they make shitty math and science T.A.s

:-)

#28-

I'm fairly confident (though i have no way of knowing, except he left when the laser itself was ready in 2000) that it is "operational" now, how many and to what extent, I do not know. it only needed a "portable" power source in 1997.

Consider this-

A tank mounted with a laser, a computer controlled, radar (or infrared?) guided targeting device. The laser (15 years from now) powerful enough it can burn through a tank in nanoseconds, not 4 to 6 seconds.

The enemy clears the horizon- 1 million chinese soldiers rushing the North Korean defense line. the computer engages the targeting mechanism, it takes them on a first come, first served basis. One by one, faster then a bullet (speed of light, no?) the laser begins burning holes through the advancing enemy. As the beam moves, and the targets fall, it becomes clear that is isn't just hitting a single sino-infantryman as it advances down the line- it is taking out soldiers 5 to 7 layers deep. In the space of seconds, whole Sino Divisions are decimated, and yet the enemy continues to pour over the horizon, walking now across acres of it's own dead..................................

Game over, check mate. Thank-you Ronald Reagan, and the covert and couragous people who funneled the money to this project, even after congress and clinton tried to kill it- thats right, that's what "michael" told me, they tried to kill it.

While I think this is neat in a technical sort of way, I cant hink of all sorts of ways for this thing to break and wonder why they would use this thing as a manportable weapon. Dust, atmospheric distortion, shock. I hope they're able to over come all these problems.
Personally as a soldier, I'd rather have the old reliable high velocity terminal lead poisoner than a potentitally cranky new toy until it's proven.

Can we borrow it?

(breaking code of silence)

Atmospheric distortion is a non-issue and has been ever since AO (adaptive optics) systems became so widespread and cheap enough that slapping them on the focusing system of every laser weapon would be only somewhat more costly than slapping a GPS receiver anywhere the armed forces want one. AO systems use distorting mirrors or lenses to compensate for atmospheric distortions and do so quickly. Dust is also not a problem - light has momentum and this much power focused tightly would punch a hole through dust, I bet, since lasers of this power have been shown to throw reflectors quite far - there was a NASA program studying the feasibility of using lasers to push payloads into space from the ground.

All future naval ships will have Motor-Generator drives for a number of reasons.

One of the reasons is to be able to power a very high power laser. Or several.

For aircraft carriers another reason is the electric powered catapult. As opposed to the steam powered jobs used these days.

The ground pounders are switching to hybrid vehicles for the same reason. They have already fielded a hybrid diesel electric HummVee.

The electrical power requirements of future military vehicles is immense. The bandwidth for communications is also quite large.

OTOH no military will be competitive with the US of A military for at least twenty years and maybe fifty, given the relative rates of advance.

BTW as far as I know all Clinton did was kill deployment of the laser. He did not kill the R&D. This was probably a good decision. We will not be carrying a bunch of marginal junk in the inventory because of premature deployment.

In any case the Navy's decision to go to all electric ship drive was made on Clinton's watch.

We are fighting this war with a Clinton built military. The Keel for CVN 76 was laid in the Clinton era. It will go into the fleet this summer.

Decisions were made that were not all bad. Like the force reductions. It seems like we have enough forces to fight 2 wars at once with 1/2 the troops needed in 1991. So the reductions allowed us to strengthen our economy without reducing our striking power.

Now that we have a war on more stuff is on the way. Especially handy will be CVN 77.

I believe Clinton will go down with a very mixed record.

His delaying the war has relatively strengthened us while weakenening our enemies.

We are very lucky that the 9/11 attack happened before the Arabs got the bomb. That little premature ejaculation is going to lose them the war.

Chemical lasers. Hot stuff for over 20 years, but you don't really need to know.

I want one for my Honda CR-V. This would be perfect for rush hour traffic.

I've been digging the way that the Patriot missliles that don't work have been shooting down the Scuds that Saddam didn't have. But this could be even cooler. If they can actually stop artillery then get them over to Seoul pronto.

#36

We are fighting this war with a Clinton built military. The Keel for CVN 76 was laid in the Clinton era. It will go into the fleet this summer.

That's highly debatable- most of the Stuff was in the works long before Clinton ever ran for office, he just let it run on, killing whatever he could at every opportunity to appease the "butter before guns" crowd who wanted the money spent on low income housing. Remember it was Clinton and company who steadfastly refused one pay raise after another for the military, you know, the guys who put their lives on the line.

To call it "Clinton's military" is pure blasphemy, the people actually in the military couldn't wait for him to go. AS his final gesture of ill will toward the military, Clinton transferred as many troops out of Florida at the last minute in 2000 in order to negate their votes by making it impossible for them to cast absentee ballots.

The Clintons hated the military, always have, always will. Your argument is the latest face saving BS to come out of the left "save clinton's reputation/legacy" crowd yet. All in order to run his PoS wife for office in 2008.

It won't work, America doesn't want her, they were glad to see him go, once they awoke from an 8 year long bender spent on easy money- the "Clinton bubble" bought by not enforcing the FTC rules, has a left a decidedly bad hangover and no one wants that jerk back, except the extreme left. Which totals about 15 to 20% of America.

Bill Clinton- Legacy of a trailer park trash Presidency.

What a great title.

#36

We are very lucky that the 9/11 attack happened before the Arabs got the bomb. That little premature ejaculation is going to lose them the war.

yeah, well, Nth Korea has em now, because Mr. Limp Dic* wasn't man enough to take out their reactor in 1994 the way Isreal did Sadaam's.

Oh wait, I forgot, BIll couldn't take out the Nth Korean reactor, he had a Chinese campaign contribution of 6 MILLION DOLLARS to think about, wouldn't want to piss off a major donor by whacking it's client state.

"America? what's that?" BIll Clinton, shortly after receiving a phone call from Beiging granting the 6 mil in response to Lewinski asking if they were "home" yet.

As everyone's favorite bunny has noted, if it can be pointed upwards it can be pointed downwards... From our air-supreme planes.

Imagine a version of these mounted on a bunch of circling airborne drones... A spotter would, like an old-style god, be able to call down fire from the heavens in real time. Or 'decapitate' unhelpful foreign leaders with no muss. Beautiful. Of course, domestic deployment would have to be strictly forbidden...

#28 Jay
Exactly right. Even if they are testing a 'prototype' this summer, its doubtful that we'll actually see this system used on the battlefield within the next 5 years or so.

Next time North Korea wishes to do a missile defense, America ought to do a test of their own ... test out their anti-ballistic missile system on the DPRK's missile.

The name "Star Wars" is too old. How about "Die Another Day"?

Some random laser stuff:

When I was in the laser program at Vincennes University in the early 80's, a guy caught a stray beam inthe eye at a light show we were putting on. Just a low-power unit, 1 or 2 watts...but he had some pretty wicked retina damage. He said his opthalmologist called all his colleages over: "Hey! You guys gotta see this!"

I read an article around the same time about laser weapons. Specifically, how do yo tell you've hit what you're aiming at, say a jet pilot? Somebody figured out that you could boresight a spectrograph, and if you get a strong carbon line, you've successfully vaporized the pilot.

S. Razor posted this on the 2nd...a tactical laser rifle.

Better living through technology.
/manic grin

#44 Andjam

The name "Star Wars" is too old. How about "Die Another Day"?

I respectfully submit I'm Gonna Get You Sucka.

Going with current releases, I think Bulletproof Monk might sound better...

Eurowinee? A s an Englishman I would like to pointout that the layered armour of the Abrams was developed in England (Choban, now going to be dorsetshire) and the gas turbine that powered it was invented by Frank Wittle (also English).

Off topic.
He IS Back!
Said Al-Sahhaf on Abu Dhabi television today: looting in Baghdad is "a shopping festival"

Hey, Number 2, who is number 1?

#48 DocMartyn

Not to be overly pedantic, but it was Air Commodore Sir Frank Whittle who passed away in 1996 in Columbia, MD. His German counterpart, Hans Von Ohain, actually got his jet (He178) into the air (8.27.1939) long before Whittler's (the Pioneer first flew on 5.15.1941). Von Ohain passed away in Melbourne, FL in 1998 (interesting how both of them chose the US as their homes, isn't it?)

So, it could be argued that the gas turbine that powered that tank was really first invented by a German...

Clutch(ing) at straws? However, that was because the air ministary thought that there was no need for the jet engine. Wittle made the first one and got the patent, do you know. I only share my moral highground with cyclists.

The big question though, is can we attach them to shark's heads?

Oh, and #34: No.

I think we need to take that laser out on a test drive. Let's see.....hmmmmm....how about....say....SYRIA?

OT, for those in need of comic relief: [Link: www.pucestopallusa.blogspot.com...]

#3 Re: Laser power.

For comparison, the high end of industrial steel plate cutting lasers is 6 Kw to maybe 7.5 Kw. These will cut 1" steel plate at a decent travel rate. Of course the target is much closer to the power source than these military applications, and the type of beam is likely to be quite different.

Another neat thing about lasers of any type is that the strength of the steel does not effect the cutting capability. Fully heat treated armor steel cuts as readily as plain mild steel. Reflectivity is more important, the industrial lasers can only cut perhaps 1/2" aluminum.

I think that defense against such a military laser would be most difficult. I'm sure the frequency of the laser light they use is minimally effected by such things as reflectivity. Your only hope would be to wrap your self in low density refractory and get the hell out of the beam!

#52 Dcomartyn

(good Marillion CD play on name!)

Whittle had the jet engine patented first in 1930 (B.P.# 374206), but had to let the patent lapse in 1935 since it would have cost him 5UKP and he was pressed for money at the time. Von Ohain was granted a patent on his version of the jet engine in 1936, since there were major differences between his version and Whittle's. Both men, at the time, were unaware of each other's work. Both are co-credited with being the inventors of the jet engine.

Ok, when do we get lightsabers?

test

Weaponized lasers will start up a new trade in laser-resistant (flake-off paint over a reflective coating?) armor. Right now lasers would be deadly effective since armor is designed around ballistic and kinetic protection. There are known methods of providing laser protection, it's just that they're not used at the moment.

When I was still in the R&D loop, there was more worrying about low-power blinding lasers, which the Russians had no qualms about using, Geneva convention or no.

#56 Craig

Reflectivity is more important

finally a use for the all those foil hats the weenies wear.

Before I knew more about lasers (when I was a kid, now) I always thought the idea of battlefield lasers was stupid. I mean, all I have to do is wear tiny mirrors all over my clothes and the damn things bounce right off! :)

Anyway, these are incredibly cool. As for ABL being experimental, well, remember those air-sucking bombs we used in Afghanistan were "experimental" but the normal (long) review process was short-circuited for live-fire testing. And they worked.

10 years is a good rule of thumb for military use. Remember the F-117? It was first available in 1981, operational in 1983, and on the tarmac running and ready to go into Libya in 1986!

Also, Carter cut the B1 program and caught hell from Reagan for it in the campaign; Reagan claimed Carter was gutting our defense capability. Carter had some folks brief Reagan on the B2 -- he cancelled the B1 because it was (and is) unnecessary -- but Reagan kept screaming about the B1 and eventually had to reinstate it. Campaign promises, you know.

The F-117 was able to take off, fly to it's target, engage the target, return, and land, all under computer control in the 1980s. Air Force loved it so much they had the capability added to all their planes. Betcha didn't know that, didja? :)

F-117 radar cross-section was less than the pole on which the model was tested. Realistically it was closer to a mosquito. Ben Rich, head of Skunk Works, took the smallest ball bearing he could find and tossed that on generals' desks until they finally made it a "black" program.

(Interesting side note: the F-117 stealth design was based on research done by a Soviet scientist around 1960 -- but the Soviets didn't see it as important so they let it be published unclassified!!)

(For more info read The Skunk Works by Ben Rich, the second director, and father of the F-117)

We have so much crap out there we can't even begin to imagine what we can do.

Personally, I'm waiting for the weather-modification stuff. Oh, wait, don't we already have that? :)

Even better, the earthquake-satellite from Under Siege 2! "Our condolences to Pyongyang on your recent terrible earthquake. What? Oh, it destroyed your reactor? Oh, that's too bad, Mr. Kim." ...shuffle papers... "Now where is that pesky Saddam?"

Laser! Ah!!!
25kW and 100kW power lasers are monsters compared to most laser systems. Semiconductor laser are relatively efficient in converting electrical power to light, close to 50%, so they need power sources of 50kW and 200kW of electrical power... thats a lot of electricity!
I am wondering how many shots they can take before "recharging"... probably one (similar to the chemical laser mentioned before).
Regarding eyesafety, if the wavelength is more than 1.4 micrometers, they are eyesafe, but I would not even considered taking a "look", even accidentally, at such a high power beam.
Not sure if they would work OK in bad weather conditions. Crap in the air can really mess up the propagation of the beam, and lots of other things to consider... including the spreading of the beam, reflection from surfaces, and bending from thermal expansion of the air. All those goodies...
A demo would be very interesting!

PS. I hate my laser class!!!

Suggested look for the system

New MTHEL - PDF format

Working in military R&D can be very entertaining: I gave up video games (of the $25,000 and up variety) because the toys in the lab are better. (One of my white light strobe lamps will move a letter size sheet of paper 1/2 inch at six inches from the lamp.)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince my supervisor to enter the Darpa Grand Challenge which would be a great way to carry a battlefield laser into action.

I spent part of my misspent youth shooting artillery for the US Army. From there, I learned that to manufacture, transport, and to fire a medium caliber artillery round cost about $100 (1970 dollars). Cheap. Efficient.

I hate to be the turd in the punchbowl, but the concept of knocking down incoming artillery projectiles with very expensive beam weapons is much akin to weeding your front lawn with cruise missles.

Gotta love the technology though. When it works. I think from just economics alone however, projectile weapons will still rule the roost for a long, long time.

Another arrow in Freedom's quivver!

See?? not everything that comes out of California is covered with granola.

#68, The vast majority of the "gee whiz" stuff coming out of California is developed (with notable exceptions) by people edcated out of state.The avarage California HS graduate couldn't read the lable on a granola box and spends most of their time searching for the next great motzart of rap or silacone sculpture.

#61 grendel-
And that is why it is so important to wear them shiny side out!

Quiche Lorraine, for a valid comparison you would have to look at the cost of the "ammo" a laser would use. You might also compare the production cost of the artillery piece with that of the laser gun. In any case, there is currently no defense against artillery, as far as I know, so anything we come up with will be a vast improvement in our capability.

Frikin' la-zer beams. Gotta luv it.

For Jamie:

Are those fricken' sharks with fricken' laser beams attached to their fricken' heads?

   - Dr. Evil
   [Link: us.imdb.com...]

The avarage California HS graduate couldn't read the lable on a granola box and spends most of their time searching for the next great motzart of rap or silacone sculpture.

Perhaps the next time you make gereral insults to the intelligence of some people, you might try using a dictionary and perfect your own spelling. Literacy...please practice it.

Correct spellings: average, label, Mozart, silicone.

Gymnast, OOOPS! I missed one...

educated

#74, 3 out of 4, not bad. You must be one of the notable exceptions. Test question, which of your citations is incorrect? Hint, see # 73.

Gymnast
#69

Typo, not spelling error...big difference.

#77, Hint, look again, at #73, last line. Google all words if you must. Is the west coast cosmopolitan? Or just proud of the the UCLA faculty.

re: 71 Steve in BDA
The only active defense against artillery (as opposed to passive defenses like bunkers) now is counterbattery fire, and inspite of the neato toys at LLNL that's not likely to change any time soon. Acquisition and targeting are very difficult problems, more difficult than they are with aircraft. Target tracking is simpler ('cause artillery always uses a ballistic trajectory), but keeping the laser focused on one spot on the target long enough to burn through is very, very difficult even if the target isn't spinning. Then, even if we succeed in all that, the explsive warhead still has to be vulnerable to non-impact, non-electrical detonation.

That last might not be a big issue, though. There's actually a laser in the field right now undergoing UXO field trials in Afghanistan. it's called Zeus, and reaganite should really love it.

Gymnast, sorry to burst your bubble but silacone is not a word. Look it up in the dictionary and then get over it.

#40 Robert Brandtjen,

Your argument is the latest face saving BS to come out of the left

Very nice. Except that I'm on the right.

I just calls 'em as I see 'em.

What you say about Clinton is true. He may have made a bunch of good decisions for some very bad reasons.

BTW the bubble was caused by Greenspan and not Clinton. You can't have a bubble without excess liquidity. Greenspan controls liquidity not Clinton. The excess liquidity was in response to the year 2000 scare. That scare also caused demand in the electronics and computer industries to spike. Remember that Greenspan's #1 worry at the time of a booming economy was deflation. Deflation in an expanding economy is caused by increases in efficiency. Obviously a lot of factors combined.

Rummy is having trouble bringing "old thinking" generals up to speed. The frictions between Clinton and the military may not have been just Clinton's anti-military stance. It may have had to do with Clinton's desire for a military more suited to today's threats. Which at the time was called the "peace dividend".

The proof is in the pudding.

2 1/2 divisions defeated 10 or more Iraqi divisions. This is unprecedented. It was done with technologies extended on Clinton's watch if not invented then. Oh yeah. The Army finally started reading and following Patton's doctrines. No more attrition warfare.

This means we have a military capable of 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 major wars. This is an improvement over 1991 when we were at a 2 war capability with 2X the manpower.

BTW I still think delaying of the roll out of the high power laser program was a good idea. When it was first suggested the technology was not so good. It is much better now. More powerful, higher efficiency lasers and much faster computers.

Chemical lasers are going out of style for military use. The future is electrical.

Putting off the upgrade of the military for 6 years as Clinton did allowed us to become economically much stronger. We are now able to field a much stronger military force while hardly breaking an economic sweat. Something our enemies have to think long and hard about. Economic power is an important component of military power.

This stuff is just so cool! If you use the rail gun and throw stuff at 25,000 mph, it does not need to be explosive, right? Like the inert precision guided concrete bombs we have used in this battle to take out tanks without a high risk of collateral damage.

Imagine the kinetic energy of something moving that fast. I wonder if the amount of heat generated by the impact would cause typically non-pyrophoric metals to explode in flames? Strange things happen at extreme pressures and temperatures.

If a laser may have problems with taking out an artillary shell, how would a laser be of much use against a rail gun-shot inert projectile?

It sure is an interesting time to be alive!

#77, A good sight pattern, a steady squeeze, and nine grams goes down range without even knowing how to spell bulit. Lasers make this easier yet, in fact they already have. I can't wait to see the new shiny chrome plated APCs the French are going to sell to the Syrians. The North Koreans can only manage a good wax job for theirs due to contrained finances.

#80, It is in Southern California but it's plural and refers to augmentive surgery and upper deck sculpture. How do you think Motzart's doing on the west coast these days, any chance of him breaking in on the gangsta rap scene?

Shalikashvili "On Strategy"? I think not. Perhaps on "Regulations and Dating Patterns of Officers (with exceptions for the CIC) Without Asking and Telling"

Craig:

It's not a rail gun, but you might find LOSAT interesting.

#84 Sure, google-spin it all you want. Your original post #69 "spells out" your apparent lack of education. Now, go back and read some real books and try not to rely on Google next time for your lame explanations. Yawn. I done.

#62 Rock

Good post on aviation and other developments. I do disagree on one item.

Also, Carter cut the B1 program and caught hell from Reagan for it in the campaign; Reagan claimed Carter was gutting our defense capability. Carter had some folks brief Reagan on the B2 -- he cancelled the B1 because it was (and is) unnecessary -- but Reagan kept screaming about the B1 and eventually had to reinstate it. Campaign promises, you know.

As it turns out, the B-1 was the right call. It gives us force flexibility. Remember, the calls that it was worthless because it wasn't used in GWI were made by reporters ignorant of the fact that they were all assigned to nuclear deterrance in the SIOP. In Afghanistan and in Iraq they were absolutely devastating. They carry more bombs than a B-52, can fly supersonic low level runs. The suckers can drop 28 1,000 lb JDAMs. Indeed, the one that looks like it took out Saddam in Baghdad blasted a 70 foot deep by 300 foot wide crater there THEN proceeded to hit 4 other enemy target areas, THEN went back the next day and dropped 28 more on the Hammurabi Division.

Like most of his decisions..the Worst President of the 20th Century blew the B-1 call.

The B-2 carries half the bombs the B-1 does and costs 11 times as much per plane. Think of the B-2 and F-117 as specialty planes capable of dropping a small number of bombs on highly important targets - leadership and air defense...but not what you would want for creating a metalstorm of death on an enemy division, an airfield. 6 B-1s on a mission have the offensive firepower of the fighter bomber wing of a whole aircraft carrier and are just about as fast reacting as a carrier in a crises. B-1 JDAMs are cheaper by far than cruise missiles...

So, right now, the biggest 3 Air Force needs the US has - after the joint strike fighter - are creating a replacement for the B-52, an evolution of the A-10 ground support plane (because the Apache Longbow was found to be inadequate in that role in the face of ground fire), and development of a whole new breed of plane....a superheavy lift cargo plane..likely one that uses ground effect for heavy lift. Also tantalizing is the AF's quest for a multi-role hypersonic space plane - recon/bomber/space utility....harkening back to the pre-shuttle Dyna-Soar Project. (Note: the F-22 just doesn't seem needed for air supremacy in any conflict scenario).

The biggest thing the Army needs is the ability to deploy heavy divisions close to as fast as the Marines and the 101st currently can. That means the Navy ACTUALLY has to work with the Army for once and put bids out to fund a fleet of specialized roll on, roll off transports for heavy infantry and it's air support wings. As the Marines are now fond of saying - based on what they did in Iraq - speed kills. The US Army needs to get similar speed. The 4th ID is now finally puttering into Iraq - in the future....we need outfits like the 4th to be able to deploy from stand-down at US bases to actual war-fighting in 10 days.

#48 Doc Martyn
The British Isles are not part of Europe, therefore the British cannot be Euroweenies. There is a big difference between the Isles and the Continent.

#87 , All in good fun. Its not often that I get a chance to meet a California Intellectual. At least one with a laserlike sense of humor and a spellchecker.

High five.

#91, Things are seldom as they first appear, and deciphering meaning in only one dimension often invites problems when the messege (message) is constructed is in multiple layers for a reason not apparent to the reader. Mozart and Motzart work equally well but not for the all purposes.

Preview dammit. "but not for all the same purposes."

#81

excess liquidity. Greenspan controls liquidity not Clinton. The excess liquidity was in response to the year 2000 scare. That scare also caused demand in the electronics and computer industries to spike. Remember that Greenspan's #1 worry at the time of a booming economy was deflation. Deflation in an expanding economy is caused by increases in efficiency. Obviously a lot of factors combined.

Hmm, The market began it's downturn in march of 2000. Up until about 1997 Greenspan had kept the money very tight during the preceeding years. The years from say, 1982 to 1997 show a very deffinate drop in the number of "real" dollars in relation to the GDP. The WSJ had been, by 1996, inpuning Greenspan for being far too tight with the money supply for years.

Clinton's FTC failed at enforcement. That failure might have caught the false accounting which was responsible for a lot of the run up in stock prices between 1998 and 2000 and there by lessoned the 3 trillion dollar loss in the equities markets. Certainly, Greenspan, who made his last big push in the final months of 1999 and not 2000, was not the lone culprit in the boom-bust of the tech sector. The leading companies who were also conducting the fraud, begin doing so in 1998. There is no doubt that had they been honest, the money made available by Greenspan would have flowed elsewhere in the economy- as it is doing now.

There was not a "spike" in the electronics hardware itself, it's upward demand is fairly constant from 1993 on, indeed, from 1990 onward. I would say the demand was fuled more by the "promise" of the internet, as well as major leaps in software, then buy a pure speculative boom. Buying hardware that is out dated the moment you buy it, is not speculative. A better historical scenario would be the RailRoad stock boom-bust of the 1880's- 1890's.

Putting off the upgrade of the military for 6 years as Clinton did allowed us to become economically much stronger.

While raising taxes and gutting the military, Cliton used the money to enhance and extend social welfare programs designed to enhance Democratic party poll numbers- the money taken from the military was used to extend welfare benefits to immigrants, both legal and illegal. it was used to to create new programs, such as "AmeriCorps", whose workers were used to bolster the available employees for nutcase socialists groups such ACORN and now the NION idiots.
Cliton squandered the "peace dividend" by raising taxes and spending at the Federal and State levels- a major economic "no no" when an economy is growing, not shrinking. He in fact sucked money out of the efficient private sector and put it into the extremely non-effecient public sector- the whole purpose for which was merely to buy votes by appeasing various groups- the tried and true method of all Democrats.

Even now Cliton makes the claim that Bush is wrong to spend money on war, rather then "american poor"- the vast majority of which are neither american nor poor. At all levels, other then the military, Federal employment rose substantially, along with spending, through out his 8 years in office.

#81-

I'll add this. Putting off the upgrade of the military, as well as putting off the war on terror, allowed OBL the opportunity to create the 9/11 terror strike.

I also doubt whether 2 1/2 divisions will be enough to handle the Nth Korean Army should the necessity arise. My bet is, it won't be. We will be forced to depend upon the Sth. Korean Army, maybe they're capable, maybe not.

As per the effect on the military of draining their resources over 8 years, the fact it took nearly a year to deploy them to the gulf is not a very good sign. Most likely their weapons stocks had to be made up, as there was nothing in Cliton's budgets to do so. Not to mention poor logistical support built-in to the Military by decommisioning too many transports, too many divisions? We used civilian, foreign owned transports- not a very good option, IMHO.

Consider that in 1942, in far less time, we moved 10 times as many troops to Nth. Africa as well as other theatres of operations in the Pacific. All while traing and equipping a military on it's way to becomming a 10 million man force.

In 1945 (earliest year I could find numbers for), our military budget was 90% of federal spending, and 37.4% of GDP.

In 2003, our military budget was 17.8% of federal spending and 4.3% of GDP.

In less time, more troops, and a LOT more money.

I'll add this. Putting off the upgrade of the military, as well as putting off the war on terror, allowed OBL the opportunity to create the 9/11 terror strike.

9/11 was caused by the same thing that caused Pearl Harbor. You can't see what you don't believe.

There was no mandate from the American people to go after OBL. Most Americans discounted the OBL "myth" when Clinton was in office. I know I did. Every time it came up I thought it was some kind of Clinton gimmick.

Of course a lot of that has to do with the Republicans spending two years on Clinton's sex life instead of national policy. Every time Clinton brought up problems it was denounced as a distraction from the impeachment process. Wagging the dog is what they called it.

9/11 was necessary to change the American mind set.

Sad but true facts of life.

Better numbers, and the official source. (DoD site, in PDF format).

In 1942, 67.1% of the federal budget, and 16.3% of the GDP, was devoted to the DoD. Numbers are slightly higher for national defense.

In 2003, those numbers become 16.9% and 3.3%.

Yes, Virginia, money talks.

For those who are curious, the high numbers are from 1944, when 83.1% of the budget and 36.3% of the GDP went to the DoD. Our current military numbers are about 50% lower than they were during Vietnam. The group with the highest percentage reduction was the Army, and the lowest percentage reduction was the Marines. Active-duty personnel growth under Bush has been minimal - there are only 8,000 troops more on active duty now than there were in 2000 when Bush took office. (Note - these numbers most likely do not include call-up of reserves for the Iraq operations.)

#97 M. Simon:

"Of course a lot of that has to do with the Republicans spending two years on Clinton's sex life instead of national policy."

Don't even TRY to give me that crap. Maybe a few people screwed up (no pun intended) by focusing on that, but the real issue always was LYING under oath. Always was for anyone with a brain. Perhaps our inept Special Prosecutor missed the point, as well as most of the media (whish was more than happy to perpetuate the "persecuted for his personal life" myth), but don't try to paint the rest of us with that tired old brush.

Oh, another thing:

"Every time Clinton brought up problems it was denounced as a distraction from the impeachment process. Wagging the dog is what they called it."

Like the need for bombing an aspirin factory, you mean?

Actually, we didn't turn down offers to deliver the emperor of Japan into our custody multiple times before Pearl Harbor. And it's a lie, not "true" to say that Republicans didn't spend any time on national policy while the commander-in-chief was otherwise preoccupied. I would have preferred a stronger military, used properly, and the money back from the national and global economic losses caused by terrorism over the last several years. Oh yeah, there's 3,000 who died on our soil I'd kinda like back too.

Trust me, it wasn't the "we support our soldiers when they shoot their officers, no blood for oil, America is the terrorist, the UN must approve our policy" "crowd who found the USS Cole attack or the embassy bombings sufficient justification for going to war. It would have been a harder sell, but don't even pretend Cl_nt_n was the sole defender of America who was unjustly thwarted.

After handing a loss and disgrace to the US military to filthy street thugs, crippling our intel community, allowing an attempted assassination of a former president to stand, rearming the PLO, paying N. Korea to make nukes while letting Pakistan and India acquire the same, allowing Saddam to end weapons inspections, and taking money from China to help their ICBMs reach American soil, do you really want to try the Cl_nt_n Military Policy Rehab Tour here? Try NPR, you won't get criticism, tough questions or facts put up against the spin.

I'll back M Simon on that one. As a Republican....I was amazed to watch the religious right go herpentile on Clinton and try impeaching him over a blowjob. Losing the control of the Senate and a large number of House Seats as a consequence. Effectively paralyzing the needed decisions on domestic and foreign policy for 2 years. The best iteration of idealogical self-righteous throat-slitting since the McGovernites dragged down the Democratic party.

Nice to know the Republicans acted faster than the Dems did with the McGovernites and checked their self-defeating moralistic prigs.

Remember, at the end of his term....Clinton, for all his numerous faults, was far, far more concerned with OBL and WMD than Bush was in his first 9 months. Bush started out with stem cell research and tax cuts aimed for his richest Top 1% buddies (fueled by record surpluses and a still-strong economy) as his prime policy-making fixations. Bush was oblivious, as were most of us, about Al Qaeda's danger.

9/11 rang his bell. Now Bush has the WoT and still pushing for rewarding his "bestbuds" - the Top 1% fatcats, as his prime goals.

#99 dangermouse - the issue was never about lying under oath about a previous crime committed. It was Clinton first lying to his wife and then Starr's investigators about getting a blowjob. To most Americans, the Republican Morality Police faction looked as queer and bizarre, as the still pissing and moaning Democrat "Stolen Florida Election Conspiracy to Launch the Bush Dictatorship" faction look.

#95 Brandtjen

I also doubt whether 2 1/2 divisions will be enough to handle the Nth Korean Army should the necessity arise. My bet is, it won't be. We will be forced to depend upon the Sth. Korean Army, maybe they're capable, maybe not.

I note that S Korea's forces are judged superior to N Korea's. And, if N Korea invades S Korea we should PREFER that S Koreans defend their own country
instead of Americans fighting and dying for S Korea in their stead.

Ran-

I note that S Korea's forces are judged superior to N Korea's. And, if N Korea invades S Korea we should PREFER that S Koreans defend their own country
instead of Americans fighting and dying for S Korea in their stead.

Well Ran, thats a fine thought, but in 1939, France and England were judged to have a better Army then Germany- 4 weeks in June quashed that idea.

No military leader worth his salt bets on the come, you must plan and be prepared for the worst case scenario, period. If you don't, you end up with a Million Chinese pouring over the border, just like they did the first time around.

Now, real quick, do you nuke em or run? Truman chose to run, letting the Marines do the dirty work of defending the rear.

Eisenhower would have nuked them, MacArthur as well. I don't trust democrats as war leaders.

To all those who have corrected my understanding of relative KW (see my post #3), thank you. You're right--I forgot that a mere 5 or 6mW laser can do things like burn a CDR, and that for a laser, 100KW is indeed massive power.

#58, lightsabres I want too, but strong with the Force I am not. A way for a laser to magically end about a meter from its point of origin I would love to see ;) .

Not to mention seeing a laser manifested as short linear bursts of light that travel at relatively slow, visible speeds in order to look like cool blasters on film! (LOL)

Richest 1% buddies? Like Striesand? Moore? Kerry? Daschle? Edwards? Kennedy? Turner? Raines? Huffington? Madonna? Personally, I'm glad some are wealthy. They can create new jobs, new items and services and give pay raises. It's more rewarding working for them than diggin ditches for the gubment. If some do get their wish and take the richest 1% out back and shoot them, we're still going to have a "richest 1%"

Now if we get to the point everyone is taxed at the same percentage rate as the obscenely wealthy (a nurse married to a cop in Democratic terms), and then a politician wants to lower their their taxes only, I'll be sure to join the injustice chorus. N. Korea and the Soviets have had progressive taxes. They sucked. The lower (to a point we haven't seen in our lifetimes) the taxes and the flatter, the more a country and its people thrive. Documented, factual history.

Personally I'd love to take the poorest segment of the poorest 1% that complains about America (while receiving free health-care, housing, food and education) and have them live in Somalia for a year.

#88 - Ranbutan

the Apache Longbow was found to be inadequate in that role in the face of ground fire

I think the problem was reliablity, primarily because of the (exceptionally bad) sand storms.

a superheavy lift cargo plane..likely one that uses ground effect for heavy lift

I believe you refer to the Pelican.

Nice "popular science" article here.

ah fun stuff!!! you'll also all love taht the left is still convinced that "it won't work"!!!

hahaha

matt yglesias is going to have a cow when he sees it happen!!!

go team!

losats are very sweet, and operational... btw it's chobham armour.. dude was having a bad day...

and the ABL is an anti-ballistic missile weapon (provides theater air defence)... it is not an air frame defence weapon (too powerful, to slow, too few shots)

f-22 is a sad sad plane.. it's so incredibly cool, hyper powered, stand on end and do all sorts of cool tricks... but no-onew seems to even want to fly against the US!

we ned them in inventory as a threat, but it's gotta suck to be a fighter jock... no chance of making ace, all you get to do is air to mud... and f 22 is really bad at that, especially compared with JSF

on b1 vs b2... b2 is a much better aircraft, for going up against real threats... of course its existence means that we don't face any real threats, so it looks crappy... but as a first strike weapon against nk, china, pakistan or india (who knows) it is incredible.. especially as its design payload has very high efficiency (ye olde bottled sunshine)

b1 is fast, but observable, the whole point is that the president goes on tv to announce that country x no longer has nuclear weapons, and won't they please listen to reason!, which will be the first country x has heard about it!

#107 - Outsider

Thanks for the Pelican article. Note that even if those beasts were available....it still takes 10 Pelicans to equal the hauling capacity of a medium size ship. Perhaps the Pelicans could be used to carry the medium weight bulky stuff, the ships the "ready to go armor" (the ships have to get more speed than the current "pigboats"), and the troops split up riding in on airliners (they could go in a Pelican, but I'd hate to see one plane getting shot down or having an accident resulting in the loss of 6-10,000 men.

On the Longbow - After the sandstorm was over, a squadron of 22 encountered the Medina Division. And got shot to shit. 2 crashed, another 8 were made unairworthy until significant repairs could be done, and all 20 returning choppers had bullet holes. That was about the last you heard of the vaunted Longbow. News reports from the 3rd ID after organized opposition said that: "The Kiowas kept flying because they were fast and manueverable enough not to be an easy target like the slower Longbow". The Marines kept their armored SuperCobras in the air the whole time.

Model4 - We might have gone round and round on the way Bush favors the Richest 1%....but on the off-chance we haven't here are my beefs>

1. Favoring the ultrarich does not grow the economy. The tax cuts should have been business targeted. A one time accelerated depreciation for capital investment, a IT tax credit to stimulate the high tech sector, more favorable export treatment, credits to encourage R&D, and an ending in the corporate dividend tax - not the richest 1% being the prime beneficiaries if the dividend tax cut went to persons. Also, the super rich spend as much s they want already - so their tax windfall would not stimulate the economy as much as a broader based tax cut strategy. I suppose many might finally get that Ferrari or French Riveria Villa they always wanted...but what good does that do? Your Kennedys, Feinsteins, and Huffintons don't give a crap as liberals because they have so much booty already - so Bush licking their boots doesn't even get him the political loyalty of much of the super rich.

2. Favoring the rich is flat unfair - most ultrarich pay less of a total tax rate on each dollar earned than all but society's parasites. The reason being the payroll taxes, state and local taxes take more out of each dollar earned for 99% of us than affect the very very rich. on the rich. Face it, people that pay off FICA in the first workweek of the year pay less total taxes than a guy making 90K in the same tax bracket. The numbers get even more obscene when you talk discretionary dollars....after what economists call life necessities. The richest 1% not only get far more dollars...the portion of each dollar that is discretionary is larger than the lesser 99% of us. That is why the rich generally get much, much richer once they've really made it into the elites.

I don't know Model4....sociologists studying America are astonished by two "delusions" Americans have that Europeans and Asians don't. The first is that some 40% honestly think they have a good chance of winning the Lottery. The other is that 18% of Americans THINK they are in the richest 1%, with another 29% sure they will be someday...which leads them to identify with the rich more so than in any other industrialized nation - which either tax the crap out of the rich at too high a rate (economists believe that income taxes that exceed 60% in welfare states is too much). I don't know if you think you are in the richest 1% or will be someday...but I do know that you for sure pay a bigger chunk out of each dollar you get in taxes ---with even less discretionary power than Huffington, Bush, Feinstein, and Kennedy do with their expertly crafted business shelters, tax shelters and trusts....and that is at TODAY's tax rates....before Bush can work his magic with additional tax cuts for the Richest 1%.

It is amusing that the middle class and even the moderately wealthy generally stick up for the far more favorably treated Richest 1%...even though they pay a higher tax rate on their earnings and have less left of each dollar that is truly discretionary spending or capable of being invested. It's like there is a fear to criticize this arrangement as being somehow Communist or something.....or the silly notion we were suckered into in the 90's that if you pay a CEO 35 million instead of 5 million he will be 7 times as productive.

A directed-energy weapon I'd like to see would remote detonate explosives, but not by heating.

What I envision is a means of setting off dynamite vests and car bombs.

Put the suspect car, person, or package in a safe area and point the device at it. No bomb, no boom...but the device must not harm the person or vehicle it's pointed at if there are no explosives.

This would be massively useful at security checkpoints...I'm thinking Israel, naturally.

Please tell me someone brighter than me has thought of this already and it's in development.

#111

Probably a really difficult task, given the wide variety of explosives in existence. A given class might be detonatable by using e-mag waves at tuned frequencies to 'trigger' the explosives, and I think that there's been some work done on this by the US for use on Predator drones, but most likely it wouldn't work on all explosives, only some.

Just like the chem-sniffers can only detect known explosives. Sooner or later someone will find one they don't detect, and if they're smart enough to keep it quiet they can do damage.

Actually, this kind of laser artillery defense was described in October 1975 in Galaxy Magazine by a guy named David Drake, in his Hammer's Slammers stories about an armored merc regiment in the 22nd(?) century. You can find his books in downloadable form at Baen Books website.

Science Fiction: the 20 year Product Development Proposal!

And I came up with the design for a workable (according to my HS physics teacher) lightsaber in 1979. It involved making the emitter of the laser a lens that created a cone effect. At the laser beam cone edges, the light waves interfered with each other and broke up the laser, so it just became light. Inside the cone...bzzzap! I just had two problems: A high enough output portable power source, and the fact that you couldn't parry with it since the blade had no resistance. My lightsaber battles would have ended in one or two exchanges, probably with a Double Kill.

SDN

#113 SDN

Pardon my relatively ignorant grasp of optics, but wouldn't passing a laser through any lens that would bend it non-uniformly (i.e. to create diffraction fringing like you're describing) destroy the coherence properties of the beam, effectively de-lasing it? I suppose you could use a ring of lasers and bend each one into a 'cone', but then we run into the next problem...

Even if they destructively interfered at some point, they would most likely continue on past that point and re-appear once the destructive interference was over.

I need to read up more on the F-22, and am embarrassed that I haven't learned more than I have about it. But the Eurofighter is supposed to be pretty darn hot too, which would add justification for the Raptor. I fear we won't be laying waste to France any time soon, but you never know who they'll sell these puppies to. The soviets did some great work, but that seemed to be letting us do all the RnD, then copying it to a large degree. Not a bad tactic.

Ranbutan: Don't know if you'll make it back in here, but thanks for the thoughts. Came across a lot better than the shorthand you usually use. I'd add that to me, the poor shouldn't pay disproportionately for public services. If a guy earns $1000 in a year, he should pay the same X% in taxes that Bill Gates does, and be entitled to the same roads, schools, Soc. Sec., etc. Likewise, no exemptions, loopholes, breaks etc. for anyone, especially the rich. A progressive or even regressive (shudder) tax splits people into camps and really muddies the political, social and economic waters. Want to help the steel industry out because it's in our national interest? Fine, give them flat-out payments from the budget and sell the message that way. Flat tax us, simplify the code (income x X) and limit the debate in Congress to what the best rate will be for the country and citizens. 2% is too low. 80% is too high. 50% worked ok, but 40% worked even better. It really is close to a solvable problem once we take personal (me vs him) motivations out, as you recommend.

The super rich? Well, they buy Cadillacs too, and Boeings, and the Washington Redskins. America makes and sells luxuries too. The tycoon's money tends to dissipate throughout the economy in the course of a few generations doing good they never even intended. But it gets distributed based on capitalism and merit, not Congressional vote-buying, graft and croneyism. Sounds like we might agree that getting the corruption and favoritism out of the system is in the nation's best interest.

#112 sub_version

Rats.

#113 SND

Piers Anthony, in a novel whose title I don't remember, had a similar weapon. It used two lasers whose beams converged about a meter from the hilt, where interference cancelled out the beams. Of course, it wouldn't really work that way...the beams would continue on, of course. Conservation of energy and all that. Anyway, Anthony's weapon stimulated nerves to produce pain.

Okay, so he's not a hard science fiction writer...

Dude.

#110 Ranbutan

Get over you objections to the 'richest %1' getting a tax cut.

The richest %1 pay %39 of the collected income taxes. You can't have meaningful tax relief without including the folks who are carrying the heaviest tax burden.

Actual fact is that nearly half of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all...

An obscene number actually get money back in a refund through the Earned Income Tax Credit that is in excess than what they paid in -- a good old fashioned Democratic/Socialist transfer of wealth program.

What we need is to scrap the income tax and go to the flat tax.

Model4, I did come back, and thanks for your thoughts on the OT tax issue.

#118 Bigdog - My thoughts on taxation are that a simplification is vitally in order but the flat taxers always neglect to look at total taxation rates and the disparity in residual...what is left of a rich man's dollar for discretionary spending or investment vs. a poor or middle class persons.

I would like a tax structure that levels the playing field. That after Federal, state, and local taxes and non-discretionary family spending on what Americans consider necessities - a basic food, clothing, utility, etc outlay.....that the portion of each dollar earned by a fatcat that is discretionary is the same as a middle class persons.

Right now...owing to the regressionary nature of state, local taxes plus the highly regressive FICA...the rich man gets to enjoy a bigger chunk of each dollar he earns..and that is before the proposed Bush lovefest for the Richest 1% kicks in. The Flat Tax proposed by Forbes and company is also dead on arrival because it widens the gap between the very rich and the rest of us on what chunk of a dollar earned is left. If a Flat Tax variant was proposed that accounted for the regressive elements outside the Federal income tax afflicting the bottom 99% worse than the Richest, plus the higher portion of their paychecks going to life's necessities...compensated with some prgressive factors...it might have a fighting chance. But there is an obvious reason why very wealthy people tout the Flat Tax...it benefits them the most.

As for the observation that the richest 1% pay 39% of the taxes...thus deserve the bulk Bush's largess ...well, each year the elite get a bigger and bigger share of the net wealth of the nation. They own 42% of it now. If you think that is suffering...think of how the beset and put upon the rich elite in countries like Paraguay in the 1950s, or in many African countries today - that own or control 99% of the countries wealth feel about paying 99% of the taxes. Poor oppressed bastards!

A clue - the deficits from the first round of Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy have already caused reduced Federal funding, causing a hefty increase in state and local regressive taxes - that screw over the less well off. The bottom 99% are already paying for the shifting of taxation off the wealthy.

Ranbutan,

Spoken like a true Marxist. Did you even look at the link? The flat tax as proposed by Fair Tax.org answers all your objections quite handily.

Your argument that a tax cut leads to deficits fails the test of history, economics and mathematics. EVERY cut in federal marginal tax rates in the 20th century has led to increased revenues.

In the 60's JFK cut taxes nearly in half. Doom and gloom Democrats cried and wailed and predicted disaster, but the economy boomed, the middle class grew (almost exclusively through an upward migration of the marginally poor) and revenues to the federal government soared.

In the 80's Reagan pushed through massive cuts (again over the wailing protests of Democrats) and the economy recovered from the disaster of the carter years. Revenues increased astronomically, but due to Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress spending grew even faster and we were left with deficits that I am sure that you will try to pin on defense spending even though defense spending grew at a rate that was slower than the rate of growth in revenue.

Bush's tax cut is the right medicine for a stagnant economy. People (all of us) have a right to keep the money that we earn. When wage earners get to keep their money rather than have it confiscated by the government they tend to spend or invest it leading to increased economic activity. This creates jobs, and increases the tax base leading to an increase in revenues.

Take your lefty-socialist class warfare arguments elsewhere. They won’t fly here.

EVERY cut in federal marginal tax rates in the 20th century has led to increased revenues

Oh please...insipid cause and effect nonsense of the same sort as someone arguing that in the 20th Century every tax increase was justified in bringing increased benefits to all citizens or winning wars.

At least Reagan's tax cuts were broader based, not targeted for the rich. Even mainstream Republicans looking at record Federal and State deficits are finding Bush's load of BS to reward his wealthy campaign contributors too much to bear.

Fairtax.org.....??? Drivel. Whenever you look at an organization...MBA lesson #7....you never look at the PR flack output...you look at who is running the organization, who funds...in the case of NGOs...your pet NGO is just another outfit funded and controlled by fatcats.

And, Ayn Rand has been dead a long time...so spare us the cant about anyone who is getting in the way of greedy grasping billionaire con men - being Communists.

#120 Bigdog

I read it.

Ranbutan's argument holds, as fairtax doesn't want to remove federal payroll taxes.

Get a new hobbyhorse, that one's broken.

#121 Ranbutan,

Ayn Rand has been dead a long time

Marx has been dead longer. And of course given the success of those following his prescriptions he is much deader.

(flogging that dead horse for all I'm worth)

A clue - the deficits from the first round of Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy have already caused reduced Federal funding, causing a hefty increase in state and local regressive taxes ...

As it should be, though I'd quibble about the word "regressive." Does Burger King have regressive prices because a whopper costs a larger percentage of the poor man's income than the tycoon's? I'd say it would be regressive if it cost more for the impoverished (period). Sounds like possible word-gaming, like a "spending cut" that actually is a spending increase, just at a lower rate than wanted. Never had the balls to cuss out a boss for "cutting" my pay when receiving a raise that was less than desired.

Anyhow... I don't want to pay a string of middlemen to send my taxes up to the feds, through Congress and all the bs going on there, to come back (hopefully) to my state and down to the cop patrolling my streets. The feds are perfectly capable of diverting too much money to fire and to little to roads, and that's a "good" scenario. What really happens is usually much less beneficial. Let my more accountable state legislature and governor tax me if they feel the need out of the money I save by paying less to the IRS.

#99 dangermouse,

Whatever the reason we spent two years on Clinton lying under oath about his dick instead of the nation's business.

I am no Clinton lover. I consider myself a libertarian pro-war Republican.

But we wasted two years chasing Clinton. Very little of importance was discussed in those years besides Monica's kneepads and Clinton's dick.

If Clinton was really wagging the dog, the Republicans were really wagging the dick.

#63 Mie,

50 KW can be easily provided by a 100HP engine and attached generator.

#66 Quiche Lorraine,

$100 per artilery shell is cheap. Now consider doing the same work with 10 cents of gasoline.

The problem you posit is valid only if the laser generator has significant costs per shot other than the fuel for the generator.

Of course Clinton could have been responsible and honest and saved the country all the time and effort so we could focus on our nation's business. Nah, must be somebody else's fault. It's as if there was a Conspiracy of Right-Wingers. A Vast one. But at least he denied Gore the chance to step in and establish himself in the role of pres, willing to thank Bill for the positive aspects of his leadership, yet holding him to account in reserved but stern tones for his failings. He'd have been loved. But again, that wasn't on Bill's agenda.

Personally I'm glad the investigations took so much of the president's time. What was it, a year and a half to find their own documents in their own house? Anyhow, increasing the armed forces of N. Korea, China and the PLO, while allowing the dispute over Kashmir to become a contest between nuclear powers was enough of his handiwork for me.

#127 Model4

Of course, the GOP could have left it alone and let him run the country. Seriously, you think Clinton was hoping the dick thing would keep going? Yes, it was pretty slimy of him to get the hummer, but it was pretty ridiculous to have it be the focus of our nation's leadership for 2 years straight.

Wasn't this in the movie Real Genius?