Northrup opens ray-gun factory

[Fake Boris]

The line "they're not real X" is just a way of saying that all evil can't be blamed on a single ideological etiquette. If you want an example you're more likely to agree with, take Islam. Moderate imams are always trumpeting that "real" Muslims don't do this or that, so as not to associate the mainstream and the fringe.

[Kuciwalker]

That's not what che does. If something calls itself communist he by default supports it, unless it does something so undeniably bad that he can't anymore, and then he says "well, it must not be true communism then!"

[Elok]

Given the Warsaw Pact, he really doesn't have a leg to stand on in this argument AFAICT. Whether or not said commies are "true" commies is irrelevant to your argument (and I admit it is equally true of the Inquisition/Crusades/pick your atrocity); they certainly started out dedicated to the ideals of Marx, but that didn't prevent them from becoming everything they hated. Of course it's not true to the ideals, but since when is anyone with power true to his ostensible ideals?

And better body armor does sound more useful, as opposed to new ways of widening the already-vast firepower gap between us and a few Arabs with Soviet-surplus AK-47s and modified mortar bombs. Lasers won't do too well in a sandstorm, methinks, and rail-guns will just let us cause more collateral damage (read: dead children) faster. Or are we developing these to threaten China when it eventually becomes a superpower?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Elok

And better body armor does sound more useful, as opposed to new ways of widening the already-vast firepower gap between us and a few Arabs with Soviet-surplus AK-47s and modified mortar bombs. Lasers won't do too well in a sandstorm, methinks, and rail-guns will just let us cause more collateral damage (read: dead children) faster. Or are we developing these to threaten China when it eventually becomes a superpower?

Why wouldn't Lasers do well in a sandstorm?

And: Railguns are (1) cheap, (2) the gun it self is oging to be extremely accurate....maybe as accurate as the Excalibur , which, incidentally, is designed to be used with a minimum of collateral damage.

(3) If we(America) wish to be able to guarantee a smack-down on, say, China, we not only have to have a technological edge but an overwhelming technological edge.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's not what che does. If something calls itself communist he by default supports it, unless it does something so undeniably bad that he can't anymore, and then he says "well, it must not be true communism then!"

There are two ways people justify or defend the "others" action. First is meant as a tool of self-criticism that widens the perspective on your own doings. Second is sincere adherence to an ideology.

"They were not real communists" is Che the sincere marxist talking. "They were justified in doing that" is more of a practical criticism directed at America itself than a positive assement of fundamental beliefs.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Why wouldn't Lasers do well in a sandstorm?

Because they are line-of-sight weapons and, in a sandstorm, you can't see a M/F thing.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Because they are line-of-sight weapons and, in a sandstorm, you can't see a M/F thing.

In that case bullets wouldn't work either. So?

[loinburger]

AFAIK (I'm not in the Laser Division of military research, so anything I know about Laser Weapons is second-hand) the lasers are (at the moment) aimed at defense and not at offense. Anything you can kill and/or blow up with a laser can be much more efficiently killed and/or blown up with a bullet/shell. However, bullets and/or shells aren't very effective at, say, blowing up an anti-tank missile before it hits the tank.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lonestar
In that case bullets wouldn't work either. So?

Bullets will go through sand no problem. Sand will scatter a laser easily.

[Lonestar]

Dude, it's a frickin' "laser". Atmospheric effects will have even less affect on it, not more.

[loinburger]

Firing bullets blindly into a sandstorm may yield a few more kills than would firing lasers blindly into a sandstorm, but in the middle of a sandstorm I'm guessing that most of the combatants are more worried about not having their skin scoured off than they are about firing their weapons.

[Kuciwalker]

No, they'll have much more of an effect. A bullet would only be deflected by the (insignificant) mass of a grain of sand. The laser light would be scattered by the particles.

[Lonestar]

Fine, I'll take your word for it. I still think that normal atmospheric conditions would have less effect on the accuracy of a laser than a bullet.

[Kuciwalker]

Accuracy, no. Power, yes.

[Elok]

"Sandstorm" might be too extreme a word choice, in retrospect; I was thinking of blowing sand in general, or any sort of battlefield condition where there's crap floating in the air (debris from collapsed/exploded walls, smoke from bombs or fires, or plain dust). Not only does light skew and diffract in response to such things, as Kuci pointed out, but sand or grit blowing across the lens the beam is emitted from would probably scratch it, screwing the aim badly and somewhat permanently. Guns can jam, yes, but they produce a lot less waste heat and aren't as delicate. I don't know what happens when a laser's cooling system breaks down in mid-firefight, but it's probably not fun.

Lasers offer no significant advantage over gunfire that I can see, though I'm no expert. At least, not for small arms. Plus they're not exactly inconspicuous, unless they fire UV or something else invisible. You can at least silence a gun, but if you fire a laser during a night battle everyone for a mile around will know where you are.