SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Sir Garlon writes:
"According to the Associated Press, the US Navy has announced plans to actually deploy an operational laser weapon aboard the USS Ponce later this year.
The solid-state laser weapon system is designed to target what the Navy describes as 'asymmetrical threats.' Those include aerial drones, speed boats and swarm boats, all potential threats to warships in the Persian Gulf, where the Ponce, a floating staging base, is set to be deployed.
'It fundamentally changes the way we fight,' said Capt. Mike Ziv, program manager for directed energy and electric weapon systems for the Naval Sea Systems Command."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
US Navy Plans to Deploy Laser Weapon
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Q: What happens when four WASPs find themselves in the same room?
A: A dinner party.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:19PM
Is it alright to be a lot more afraid when a military starts using corporate buzzwords to describe the way their weapons are pointed at things?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:34PM
An "assymetrical" threat is one in which the US military has an overwhelming technical and training and material advantage over their opponent. In other words, almost everybody they're seriously contemplating fighting. Think "a few bad guys in a speedboat versus a US destroyer".
Of course, the fact that those few bad guys in a speedboat present no threat whatsoever to the United States itself is irrelevant when discussing this.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Wednesday February 19 2014, @03:11PM
(Score: 1) by mhajicek on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:31PM
No, it's "There's... Too... Many of them!"
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Informative) by tsqr on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:24PM
In October, 2000, 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole were killed when a small boat loaded with explosives was detonated against its hull while it was tied up in Aden, Yemen. So yeah, a few guys in a speedboat most definitely can pose a rather serious threat.
(Score: 1) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 19 2014, @11:01PM
So, in the attack on the USS Cole, how many American civilians were at risk? Probably 0. It sucks that some sailors were killed, but risking your life is part of the job description of being in the military.
How many American sailors would have been killed had the USS Cole not been hanging around Yemen? I doubt the guys in the speedboat had the capability of locating the Cole, much less hurting it, had it been somewhere further away.
And how does the Cole being in Yemen improve the safety of citizens halfway around the world?
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by tsqr on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:50PM
Thanks for moving the goalposts, from "Americans" to "American civilians". Naval vessels on deployment typically don't carry very many civilians. But that isn't the point. If you're not familiar with the political geography of the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, I suggest you consult a map. US naval vessels have long been routinely deployed to this area to protect civilian shipping from piracy (usually from Somalia, which just across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen).
Of course, if you think that sailors losing their lives in attacks is just a part of their jobs, then you probably also think that merchant seamen shouldn't complain about being attacked by pirates, as it's just part of the job. And should you ever be mugged, you can draw comfort from the fact that it's just part of city life.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 19 2014, @02:54PM
A lot of it is butch marketing speak. People in government and employed by contractors to the government, who don't have military backgrounds or training per se, love to sling it around. It makes them feel tougher. I've heard it from aides to President Clinton who've never fired a shot in their lives, and from people at the CIA who's greatest thrill is to get back an intelligence briefing they wrote for the President with an "A" grade written on the top by the big man. It evens bleeds through to entertainment. Take the Bourne movies--a lot of butch marketing terms and tough guy metaphors thrown around. Or your average FPS US-military themed games. It's inevitable that that sort of language rubs off on the real soldiers, who mostly don't need to talk tough because they are tough. They're too busy training all the time to sit around and think up poetic and fearsome ways to describe what they do.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday February 19 2014, @04:38PM
The term "asymmetric warfare" has been around for decades, referring to guerilla warfare, insurgencies, and uprisings.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by tibman on Thursday February 20 2014, @07:46PM
Asymmetrical in this case is class difference. In naval warfare the biggest ship doesn't win. You can't send an aircraft carrier against a submarine. Some ships are specialized in destroying other classes.
As far as soldiers go, they think up plenty of colorful ways to describe things. Those terms are seldom accepted by "normal" people as decent names for concepts though.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.