Sci Fi laser warfare is upon us....

LionAquaLooper

*Pew pew pew pew*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68795603

snowblind

Does this mean we will soon be regarding the opening scenes of Terminator 2 as a documentary? From a purely technological perspective the development of such an energy weapon could be regarded as a triumph. Conversely the very fact that our species is motivated to do such things in the first place signposts our limited intelligence. We're fscking idiots.

Sporky

Needs more AI. 

merlin

And the article below it "Starmer 'absolutely' commited to nuclear weapons".

We are SO fucked.

digitalscream

The article is somewhat contradictory. They start off saying that it has effectively unlimited "ammunition", but then later states that they actually need something that doesn't draw power, which means it would have to be a chemical laser (which doesn't have unlimited shots).

Unless, of course, there's some laser technology I'm completely unaware of.

If I was Ukrainian, though, I'd be somewhat concerned about the idea of relying on something that's "70% there" to protect my power stations.

Kittyfrisk

snowblind said:

Does this mean we will soon be regarding the opening scenes of Terminator 2 as a documentary? From a purely technological perspective the development of such an energy weapon could be regarded as a triumph. Conversely the very fact that our species is motivated to do such things in the first place signposts our limited intelligence. We're fscking idiots.

I do love a good LINUX point

snowblind

Kittyfrisk said:

I do love a good LINUX point

Better than chkdsking idiots for sure.

Sporky

Not everyone is hardcore enough for chkdsk. 

PolarityMan

awk

Jez6345789

Not saying we are not good at making stuff but the Yanks have a 20 year head start and they have not really deployed anything monumental. None of the stuff I have seen online seems much good against a drone or plane that then takes evasive action in most cases it continues in a straight line till it blows up.  I am sure we will continue to find more efficient ways to kill each other. The biggest problem with Lasers is some kind of portable power supply currently they need massive amounts of power.

TeleMaster

I hope you've all had your cup of LIBER-TEA! 

darthed1981

digitalscream said:

If I was Ukrainian, though, I'd be somewhat concerned about the idea of relying on something that's "70% there" to protect my power stations.

Me too - but currently they are getting pasted because they have no ammunition for the air-defense systems they have previously been given.

Something that doesn't require multi-million dollar ammunition might be a lot more sustainable...

darthed1981

merlin said:

And the article below it "Starmer 'absolutely' commited to nuclear weapons".

We are SO fucked.

"Albert, you remember I said I was worried that with the atom bomb we would start a chain reaction that would destroy the world..."

"Yes"

"I think we did..."

dano

digitalscream said:

The article is somewhat contradictory. They start off saying that it has effectively unlimited "ammunition", but then later states that they actually need something that doesn't draw power, which means it would have to be a chemical laser (which doesn't have unlimited shots).

Unless, of course, there's some laser technology I'm completely unaware of.

It's not chem, it's solid state, there is official info on the web about it. 

littlegreenman

I, for one, welcome our new laser wielding robot overlords

snowblind

Obviously what it needs is its own thorium based microreactor to power it. "Ammunition" for 25 years per refill of the reactor.

RichAC

merlin said:

And the article below it "Starmer 'absolutely' commited to nuclear weapons".

We are SO fucked.

“I’m totally committed to nuclear weapons” said Sir Kier Starmer. “I mean, I really can’t wait. It’s the main reason I want to be PM. Just imagine it, all that power to blow stuff up. Sometimes I make lists of all the places that I’m going to make go kaboom…”

digitalscream

dano said:

digitalscream said:

The article is somewhat contradictory. They start off saying that it has effectively unlimited "ammunition", but then later states that they actually need something that doesn't draw power, which means it would have to be a chemical laser (which doesn't have unlimited shots).

Unless, of course, there's some laser technology I'm completely unaware of.

It's not chem, it's solid state, there is official info on the web about it. 

That's kind of my point - they need something that doesn't draw massive amounts of power from the power station it's supposed to be protecting, which is exactly what solid state lasers do.

Jez6345789

I agree that with all major parties  committed to Nuclear deterrents and the madness that entails it is a scary world. I am not sure in the current global climate you can afford to be anything else as the bully boys like Putin are happy to rewrite the European map to their advantage and China with similar aspirations. 

May be when the wall fell and people were talking you could have got some greater traction and the UK could of walked away from Nuclear and rebuilt a different foreign policy approach but now I think it would be political suicide to change the status quo. 

robgilmo

Jez6345789 said:

I agree that with all major parties  committed to Nuclear deterrents and the madness that entails it is a scary world. I am not sure in the current global climate you can afford to be anything else as the bully boys like Putin are happy to rewrite the European map to their advantage and China with similar aspirations. 

May be when the wall fell and people were talking you could have got some greater traction and the UK could of walked away from Nuclear and rebuilt a different foreign policy approach but now I think it would be political suicide to change the status quo. 

Being commited to nuclear weapons , sorry , deterrents, makes us part of the bully boy club too. Bully boys fighting over the same street corner, supremacy. 
This isnt about protecting ourselves against others, tere is no such thing as protection in a nuclear exchange.
These arse holes want presence on the world stage.

GoFish

Who isn't "totaly comitted to nuclear"  currently? Despite all the posturing it is literally the only way to get a seat at the top table, or at least to be listened to. North Korea, Israel and Iran are  proof.