DailyDirt: More Advanced Weapons

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Technology has oftentimes advanced the weapons of war -- creating new ways to destroy things on increasingly larger scales. But as our ability to destroy has become ridiculously big, it's time to start looking for more efficient methods. Here are just a few military projects that are looking to improve targeted destruction. If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2012 @ 5:13pm

    "Now, more and more computer simulations are being used to develop defenses and to help predict where enemies might attack."

    So in other words, they're training Grammaton Clerics.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 14th, 2012 @ 5:54pm

    What an odd mixed -- and sanitized -- phrase.

    "creating new ways to destroy things" -- First there's the oxymoron: "creating ways to destroy" -- but it's only "to destroy things", no hints of killing creatures let alone murder.

    "Would you like to play a game of thermonuclear war?" -- NO. I put all such macabre "amusements" behind me by age 25, and turned to creating and building, however feebly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Nov 14th, 2012 @ 6:31pm

    "China has been developing anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) for years, and they're probably operational by now."

    Guess we better get the patent lawyers on this. It's obviously a disruptive technology and China should be sued out of existence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    NoThankYou, Nov 14th, 2012 @ 10:21pm

    Re: What an odd mixed -- and sanitized -- phrase.

    I'd say "feeble" is a good descriptor for people who look at the destructive power we unleash through our militaries, and completely miss the fact that the result is destroyed human lives. The writer of this inane, uncritical post is a good example.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Paul Keating, Nov 15th, 2012 @ 3:19am

    If only

    " Pick your ammunition, any ammunition you want... for an automatic gun that can shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. The US Army hasn't perfected such a weapon just yet, but it's looking for proposals that could make more versatile guns possible. [url]"

    IF ONLY, they would try the same with charges and cables for phones and laptops, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Nov 15th, 2012 @ 3:34am

    I say make love, not war.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Nov 15th, 2012 @ 8:01am

    China has been developing anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) for years...

    I'm sure we have nothing to worry about since China is a peaceful, loving country with the utmost respect for life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 17th, 2012 @ 8:32am

    You do realize that most major militaries have anti-ship missiles, right? It's basically an upsized scud, which can be intercepted. Maybe we won't have a 100% hit rate in interception, but if you can't avoid the missile, I guarantee that more than one missile will be used in interception. Like any other attempt to penetrate a heavily layered defensive network, it requires saturation.

    Mostly, I'm curious how they intend to handle targeting. The only viable option that could possibly provide detailed enough data to hit a moving target with a ballistic weapon would be a persistent satellite connection. You can't exactly get an airplane close enough to 'laze' the target after all, and if you can, the carrier is totally screwed to begin with.

    If they attempt to use a sonar network, there's quite a few possible counter-measures there, making the missile an expensive long range waste that could only potentially get a lucky hit in.

    On board radar guidance? Chaff can screw that completely. IR? Flares. Also, I'm not sure if a Carrier has a good enough IR signature to confidently launch a missile and hope you hit it instead of a another ship. Visual guidance? Useless on a cloudy day, as now it can't target until it's too low to make the necessary course corrections.

    No, I'm extremely curious as to what they're using for guidance if they expect it to actually be useful.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This