Pentagon to use directed energy weapons in iraq!

Originally posted by IBM

Oh and terrosrrsits didnt bomb our country? I remember 9/11. This is a message to all terroists. You will get your @$$ bombed if you do this.

yeah but it wasnt thier group was it?
firstly no they didnt bomb my country.
its a message to the terrorists that they can use a general population against the invadeing forces.
no you wont get your ass bombed you'll get every civie in a mile radius bombed but not you.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
because if we leave the terrorists gain another country thats my point.

and we have stopped the terrorists getting this country?
no we havnt , we've made it easier.
how easy would it be for shiate insurgents to take the gov after the coalition leaves?
the only way to stop terrorists is take away what they want.

I think your thinking is slightly askew, instead of arguing about what has happened in the past here is a question.

What do you think would happen if coalition forces pull out of iraq?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But time we started melting these suckers with particle beams. And as far as I am concerned there is no international law that says no direct energy weapons. And when your enemy wants to fight from mosques and fill it up with little girls. We have every right to use direct energy weapons. Nice decision by the Pentagon

Yeah! Let's melt little girls and mosques! You friggin idiot that wasn't the point! The point is to spare lives because we're going to give these people back their country soon. We're supposed to be there to help because we have to, not to "crack down" and control them, remember?

As for tear gas. To hell with the rules. I've been gassed. For a couple of beers i'll do it again. (don't try to sing the marine corps hymn in the gas chamber though... it does hurt. Just keep your lips and eyes closed and hold your breath if you can.) Probably better than being shot!

Not that i disagree with u, however

New technologies and war go hand in hand, we constantly find ways to kill.

U could focus on the humane weapons (if there is such a thing) but if you point a gun at someone you take the risk that they might shoot you back.

In this day and age the guy your shootin at might have a hi tech weapon.

Most of the deaths of civies are from airstrikes though.

I dont think directed energy weapons are strong enough. The need to be strong enough to burn off the skin off the terrorists so much that even the suns rays will cause unbearable pain. This way they will keep hiding in their caves for ever and not causing bombings.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
I think your thinking is slightly askew, instead of arguing about what has happened in the past here is a question.

no im meaning is it right to judge one man for the actions of another?

What do you think would happen if coalition forces pull out of iraq?

if they pulled out the shiates/insurgents would probably take over, its kind of ironic isnt it, the people most opressed by sadam are the ones that are fighting the forces that freed them.
it is really stupid.

Originally posted by IBM
I dont think directed energy weapons are strong enough.

dude this weapon can kill , it can fry you and you can be served up for dinner in less than probably an hour to half an hour.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by IBM
I dont think directed energy weapons are strong enough.

dude this weapon can kill , it can fry you and you can be served up for dinner in less than probably an hour to half an hour.

It can't kill, read some of the other ATS threads on the technology. It simply isn't powerful enough.

Originally posted by mad scientist


It can't kill, read some of the other ATS threads on the technology. It simply isn't powerful enough.

yeah and stick a bit more power through it and it can.

Hiya,

here's a good article on the new technology dubbed the 'pain beam'

people.howstuffworks.com...

Officials report that the weapon penetrates the skin less than 0.016 inches (0.04 cm), not far enough to damage organs. Long-term exposure to light, such as in sun-tanning, is said to be more harmful than the pain beam. Some human rights activists have voiced concerns about possible damage to eyes, but military officials contend that targeted people would likely close their eyes before damage is done.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by mad scientist


It can't kill, read some of the other ATS threads on the technology. It simply isn't powerful enough.

yeah and stick a bit more power through it and it can.

Increasing the power of the system would make it too bulky for the type of vehicles it is designed to be carried by.

Originally posted by devilwasp
no person over there thanks them

WOW! You are more deluded than I originally suspected. If, as you imply, every Iraqi citizen were against us don't you think we would be having MANY more problems than we do? Come on pal, do us all a favor and go buy a clue.

Originally posted by devilwasp
firstly no they didnt bomb my country.

Exactly the reason why you can sit back with your blind righteous indignation. Like I said before, go to Iraq. Spend some time there and then see what your opinions are worth.

Originally posted by Mr No One

WOW! You are more deluded than I originally suspected. If, as you imply, every Iraqi citizen were against us don't you think we would be having MANY more problems than we do? Come on pal, do us all a favor and go buy a clue.

they may not be against you but they dont like you that was what i implied dont try and twist my words.
mabye , mabye not . would you go up against a force like the US if all you had where your family and your gun?

Exactly the reason why you can sit back with your blind righteous indignation. Like I said before, go to Iraq. Spend some time there and then see what your opinions are worth.

no they didnt bomb my country they did kill my countries people. also what makes you knwo what it feels like where you involved in it? no you were a witness as well as me.
yeah why dnt you go to iraq or hell go to bosnia thats a perfect exsample of western involvement in small conflicts. it was just bloodshed nothing else.
see what my opinions are? that i would rather us not be there yeah lets ask every soldier/airman/marine/ sailor if he would rahter be there than at home.
also that i would rather not see our troops get killed ? yeah im sure that is sooo wrong.
also because i dont like to see people killed by ethier side makes me what weak?
also that i dont like seeing civies haveing unknown tech tested on them is a bad thing?

Originally posted by mad scientist


Increasing the power of the system would make it too bulky for the type of vehicles it is designed to be carried by.

so? a larger power source can be attached that could make it lethal im not going to get into an arguement about this it can kill but all they would need is a slightly bigger vehicle.

Please read the info on the link on my second post, if its true [rense though] it can kill big time.

Although its just conjecture you would be mad not to believe that they have new tech that can kill as that is the nature of the beast.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Please read the info on the link on my second post, if its true [rense though] it can kill big time.

Although its just conjecture you would be mad not to believe that they have new tech that can kill as that is the nature of the beast.

exsactly!!!!

I think I have been badly misunderstood. I am not against the use of this weapon. To the contrary; I think we ought to be making extensive use of these whereever practical, including on the border between the US and Mexico.

My reply to westpoint was intended to show him that the point of this weapon isn't to "melt them" as he seemed to suggest, but to assert American control in a way that enhances the safety of American troops while dealing with the enemy in a more humane way as well. This is one of those rare weapons which is win-win. It's more effective for the job than anything else we've got, AND it's less harmful to the people we are there to help.

I was a little surprised when I realized that I had been unclear and that my statement had been taken as calling the weapon cruel. I've very seldom beem mistaken for a dove in any way. (Actually I've been called a nazi more than once around here for supporting the military way of doing things a little too strongly.)

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by mad scientist


Increasing the power of the system would make it too bulky for the type of vehicles it is designed to be carried by.

so? a larger power source can be attached that could make it lethal im not going to get into an arguement about this it can kill but all they would need is a slightly bigger vehicle.

The necessary power source would be too big for any vehicle at the moment. Look at the ABL,that takes up most of a 747 and it couldn't even melt a hole through an AFV.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Please read the info on the link on my second post, if its true [rense though] it can kill big time.

Although its just conjecture you would be mad not to believe that they have new tech that can kill as that is the nature of the beast.

Like you said rense

There are weapons of this type that can kill. For example there is an EOD weapon called the LONS system that has beem deployed in Afghanistan for a couple of years for disposing ordinance (mines bomblets etc..] It is very compact , there are other sytems you will see soon on helicopters planes tanks that are more powerful . [real soon hopefully] that are preliminarily named ATL yeah thread mongers look it up