Contradicting? It may seem so...
Ever since the proposal of "Star Wars" during the Cold War, there has been a lot of interest in utilizing lasers as weapons. Now, Boeing has released footage of their airborne tactical laser. The test shows the laser scorching the hood of a truck from an airplane, and Boeing states that the truck was "disabled" off-camera.
With this kind of power, these lasers could take out human targets from the sky and change the dynamics of war. Just knowing that there is a sniper laser in the sky would have serious psychological effects on targets. The advancement of such devastating weapons can get a little scary at times. Often, one has to ask the question, "How does this help?" Aren't these advancements perpetuating and promoting violence?
But what about the other side of the story? What would happen if we didn't develop these weapons? Would halting weapons research suddenly cause our enemies to stop firing at us? Probably not.... So why not design weapons to protect us? After all, weapons can be used defensively too. An article at Wired describes a separate military application that utilizes an infrared laser to "blind" heat-seeking missiles. The article also states that Boeing has produced lasers that don't just blind the missiles, but destroy them. What does this mean? It means that if anyone tried to get violent with a laser-equipped jet, the pilot would not be harmed, thanks to the "shield" the laser will provide against the incoming missile.
Another aspect to consider is collateral damage. Normally, the military would deploy large bombs within a drop zone to annihilate a target. But if the target is just one person, or if teammates or innocents are nearby, the laser can accurate eliminate the target without harming others nearby.
Finally, developing these powerful lasers will deter enemies from causing trouble. Why shoot an expensive missile at a plane if it will just miss or get destroyed before it gets there? Why lead a terrorist army when there are snipers in the sky that can eliminate such a leader with ease?
Although there are arguments against advancing weapons technologies, there are many to support the advancement. Halting weapons research will not make our opponents any less violent. What we can hope to achieve from the research we do conduct is a safer environment for our soldiers and innocents. We can hope that the weapons will be used defensively to save lives. We can hope deterrence will protect us as it did in the Cold War, when the idea of "Star Wars" first started.
This technology is definitely psychology damaging to the enemy was seen in combat I would presume. What about the damage these lasers could cause in the hands of the public? I can't find the article right now but I heard of a company that has produced a lightsaber like laser for public use and it only costs around $700. While I doubt it's as powerful as this Boeing technology, still pretty scary to think that it could be in the hands of the public.
ReplyDeleteNice point. If such a laser, and the targeting software, could be wielded by the public, there would be quite an issue. The danger behind these lasers is their accuracy at such large distances. Unlike bullets, lasers are not affected by gravity. However, the targeting software would not be readily available to the public, I assume. This means taking out a target from a long distance would not be too easy. Additionally, such high power lasers would need a large power supply, not something that can just be carried around in, say, a backpack. You have a really good point, but I don't know how practical public attacks would be with this kind of weapon. Guns still have a better appeal for those maniacs out there, I think. Still, it's something developers will have to think about with further advancements.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, weapon technology should not be halted or slowed down because of the hope for world peace. Conflict is in human nature and sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
ReplyDeleteSo, I definitely see yours and Carlos's point--we're going to fight anyway, so why regulate weaponry?
ReplyDeleteI guess I would respond that maybe we should regulate it sometimes because it's the right thing to do. We may allow people to have certain kinds of shotguns or hand guns in particular instances, but we don't always want people to have semi-automatic weapons in big cities. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Same thing with some kinds of bombs, or nanoweapons. Or chemical and biological warfare, for that matter. Some things just challenge our humanity too much. Or the risks of proliferation and misuse are too great.
We do draw these lines, and for me this weapon asks us to have that debate, not just throw our hands up at what animals we are and go for it.
I think this is your best post yet--it's teaching us something about weapons and engaging us in complex questions without requiring that we understand everything about lasers first. More like this, please.
I agree that developing atrocious weapons, like biological weapons, definitely test our humanity. But we have to realize that maniacs and terrorists are out there trying to develop these weapons to attack us. I don't support the U.S. developing the weapons to use against terrorists or anything, but developing a biological weapon can help us learn more about how to defend against it. Very similar to the development of the intercontinental ballistic missile, and our research into developing lasers to protect against them.
ReplyDelete