Iraqi laser sidearms?
Ray
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25918
Iraq has laser sidearms for its military. Supposedly, they were used in the
Iran/Iraq war of 1981, and that the newer versions are more advanced.
Is this BS? The source is credible, but what would this thing use for a
power source? I suspect that it is chemical or gas-dynamic heated by
combustion.
Ray
Charles R Martin
Um, the credibility of the source seems a little questionable. The
logistics of putting that kind of force into the field without
detection, and the problems of concealing the forces -- especially
stashing them in Israel -- seem pretty much insuperable.
The "blinding weapon" use of lasers has been reported for years, but
the countermeasures are so simple and so common in inventory (eg,
stand-off weapons) that they don't seem very feasible. The fancier
uses, like internal haemorrhage, are energetically pretty damn tough
to do. In hand weapons, I think the pocket reactor on your back would
cook you before you got a lot of use out of it.
The "scatter and regroup" tactics described are actually pretty
standard guerilla tactics, dating back to the Civil War, the
Revolutionary War, the Mongols, and even earlier. They can work
reasonably well in some contexts, but can be trumped pretty easily by
a couple of simple changes in the rules of engagement. In particular,
the notion of getting everyone chasing after small fast mobile units
is easily trumped by bombing the very bejesus out of command and
control or supply centers. Saddam can't move his zillion-odd
"Palaces" even if his forces are otherwise mobile.
Logistics are also pretty tough when you can't "live off the land",
and the notion of lots of little caches of supplies is just fine, but
there have to be a _lot_ of them, because you're only going to be able
to use a particular cache once -- or maybe, on average, a little less
than that, because some will be destroyed before they're used and a
very high proprotion will be "blown" as soon as they're used the first
time.
As far as the prosecution of such a war once it started, you're going
to run into at least three serious problems (maybe more):
- if you use ABC weapons, you have to protect your own troops from
them or you use up your own troops. If you're sufficiently
ruthless to use up your own troops, morale plummets, officers die
mysteriously, and units tend to disappear.
- even if you _do_ protect your own troops successfully, staying in
ABC gear for any length of time seriously degrades operational
effectiveness, and (maybe more importantly!) morale. (And remember
that Saddam's troops are not exactly famous for high morale anyway.)
- you have to calculate against the very great likelihood that once
any real WMD is used, the gloves will come off. One radiologic or
nuclear weapon, and it's very likely that massive total-war
bombing, or even return use of nuclear weapons, would become
acceptable.
This sort of thing shows up pretty often -- usually it's an infinitely
worst worst-case scenario that someone is pushing for political
reasons within some ministry.
--
Chrysanthemum growers -- you are the slaves of your chrysanthemums! -- Buso
______________________________________________________________________________
Charles R (Charlie) Martin Broomfield, CO 40N 105W
Ray
"Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:m38zbev...@localhost.localdomain...
> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> writes:
>
> > According to this article:
> > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25918
> > Iraq has laser sidearms for its military. Supposedly, they were used in
the
> > Iran/Iraq war of 1981, and that the newer versions are more advanced.
> >
> > Is this BS? The source is credible, but what would this thing use for a
> > power source? I suspect that it is chemical or gas-dynamic heated by
> > combustion.
>
> Um, the credibility of the source seems a little questionable. The
> logistics of putting that kind of force into the field without
> detection, and the problems of concealing the forces -- especially
> stashing them in Israel -- seem pretty much insuperable.
Usually, worldnetdaily.com is credible, though the DEBKA reports tend
towards heavy speculation. I suppose that the writer who put the
information together may be shy in scientific knowledge. Shoot, I didn't
even calculate the muzzle velocity necessary for a "super gun" to be able to
shoot fifteen hundred miles (though they say that rocket assist is used).
Maybe I ought to do some BOTE calculations.
I'm wondering if that report is the result of a hacker getting into the
system, or maybe the work of an inside hoaxter.
>
> The "blinding weapon" use of lasers has been reported for years, but
> the countermeasures are so simple and so common in inventory (eg,
> stand-off weapons) that they don't seem very feasible. The fancier
> uses, like internal haemorrhage, are energetically pretty damn tough
> to do. In hand weapons, I think the pocket reactor on your back would
> cook you before you got a lot of use out of it.
>
> The "scatter and regroup" tactics described are actually pretty
> standard guerilla tactics, dating back to the Civil War, the
> Revolutionary War, the Mongols, and even earlier. They can work
> reasonably well in some contexts, but can be trumped pretty easily by
> a couple of simple changes in the rules of engagement. In particular,
> the notion of getting everyone chasing after small fast mobile units
> is easily trumped by bombing the very bejesus out of command and
> control or supply centers. Saddam can't move his zillion-odd
> "Palaces" even if his forces are otherwise mobile.
>
> Logistics are also pretty tough when you can't "live off the land",
> and the notion of lots of little caches of supplies is just fine, but
> there have to be a _lot_ of them, because you're only going to be able
> to use a particular cache once -- or maybe, on average, a little less
> than that, because some will be destroyed before they're used and a
> very high proprotion will be "blown" as soon as they're used the first
> time.
That part sounded pretty contrived. It would take a whole lot of time and
resources to stash enough stuff to be useful for all eventualities (or even
the most probable eventualities).
>
> As far as the prosecution of such a war once it started, you're going
> to run into at least three serious problems (maybe more):
>
> - if you use ABC weapons, you have to protect your own troops from
> them or you use up your own troops. If you're sufficiently
> ruthless to use up your own troops, morale plummets, officers die
> mysteriously, and units tend to disappear.
I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
>
> - even if you _do_ protect your own troops successfully, staying in
> ABC gear for any length of time seriously degrades operational
> effectiveness, and (maybe more importantly!) morale. (And remember
> that Saddam's troops are not exactly famous for high morale anyway.)
NBC gear is a royal pain in the a**. I haven't had to spend too much time
in MOP gear, but I haged every minute of it - especially in the summer (and
I was in Germany at the time). Dealing with the charcoal-lined suit is bad
enough. Add the rubber suit, and you have a sauna. Putting on the
protective mask (gas mask) makes the whole thing almost unbearable. It's
also hard as heck to shoot an M16 (or whatever) with that stuff on. It's
difficult to get a good bead on the sites.
>
> - you have to calculate against the very great likelihood that once
> any real WMD is used, the gloves will come off. One radiologic or
> nuclear weapon, and it's very likely that massive total-war
> bombing, or even return use of nuclear weapons, would become
> acceptable.
If Iraq nuked someone, I think that an ICBM wouldn't be too unreasonable.
>
> This sort of thing shows up pretty often -- usually it's an infinitely
> worst worst-case scenario that someone is pushing for political
> reasons within some ministry.
The more I think about it, the more I think that someone had a heck of a fun
time fabricating that story just to see how many people would swallow it.
<stops, does some BOTE calculations, does a little internet research>
On the other hand, there really WAS a Canadian scientist named Gerald Bull
(not an astrophysicist, though), and he really did try to design a supergun
for Iraq, and he really was murdered - supposedly by Mossad.
OK... I'm beginning to think "bad reporting".
<stops and does some more googling - using "iraqi laser weapon">
Hmmm,,,
http://mprofaca.cro.net/iraqcia01.html
It looks like they have something - Nd:YAG lasers are mentioned. I'm pretty
sure that the internal hemorrhaging stuff is BS. The severe burning is also
probably BS - unless used at really close range.
Considering that Iraq has lots of motivation to build advanced weaponry, and
they have no scruples about what they employ, that article is kind of scary.
I think it is over-stated, but I am beginning to wonder if Iraq might have a
few tricks that we haven't bothered to explore.
I'm glad that our folks are prepared to be very careful.
Ray Drouillard
Chuck Stewart
news:OoaZ7.64434$va.33...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com:
> "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
> news:m38zbev...@localhost.localdomain...
>> - if you use ABC weapons...
> I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
> Ray Drouillard
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Chad Irby
> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
>
> >> - if you use ABC weapons...
>
> > I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
>
> I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
No, he meant ABC (Anything But Catgirls) weapons.
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Geoffrey A. Landis
> Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
> > > "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> - if you use ABC weapons...
> >
> > > I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
> >
> > I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
>
> No, he meant ABC (Anything But Catgirls) weapons.
And what are WMD weapons? White Male Dictator's weapons?
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Isaac Kuo
> Usually, worldnetdaily.com is credible, though the DEBKA reports tend
> towards heavy speculation. I suppose that the writer who put the
> information together may be shy in scientific knowledge.
It certainly sounds like science fiction...
> Hmmm,,,
> http://mprofaca.cro.net/iraqcia01.html
> It looks like they have something - Nd:YAG lasers are mentioned. I'm pretty
> sure that the internal hemorrhaging stuff is BS. The severe burning is also
> probably BS - unless used at really close range.
I've wondered, how effective might a chemical laser be as a "long
range flamethrower"? I'm entirely unfamiliar with chemical laser
design, so I can't even do BOTE calculations.
Intuitively, I'd think that such a weapon could be used at long
ranges as long as the target is in line-of-sight. Focussing over an
area of perhaps a meter in diameter should be doable with a simple
mirrors which aren't too large. The goal is to produce severe burns
over a large area rather than penetrate.
Since we're talking Iraq, let's assume that it's okay to use toxic
chemicals and vent the stuff out to the atmosphere directly...
> Considering that Iraq has lots of motivation to build advanced weaponry, and
> they have no scruples about what they employ, that article is kind of scary.
> I think it is over-stated, but I am beginning to wonder if Iraq might have a
> few tricks that we haven't bothered to explore.
Isaac Kuo
George William Herbert
>Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
>> > "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
>> >> - if you use ABC weapons...
>> > I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
>> I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
>No, he meant ABC (Anything But Catgirls) weapons.
I suppose it would be politically incorrect to point out that
the US uses a German-manufactured chemical warfare detection
scouting vehicle named the Fox.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Chuck Stewart
news:a14oqv$p5h$1...@gw.retro.com:
Unfortunately, it is ineffective against PBS (Pretzels/Beer/Sausage)
weapons.
> -george william herbert
John Schilling
I suspect that the power source is as imaginary as the rest of the weapon.
The article you cite is chock full of extraordinary claims unsupported by
*any* evidence; credible sources tell you how they got the information they
present.
I might buy that some con artist sold the Iraqis a bunch of cumbersome,
useless "laser pistols". But 75,000 troops deploying to the Mideast
without the preparations being broadcast on CNN two months in advance,
is ludicrous.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
John Schilling
>"Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote in message news:<OoaZ7.64434$va.33...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>> Usually, worldnetdaily.com is credible, though the DEBKA reports tend
>> towards heavy speculation. I suppose that the writer who put the
>> information together may be shy in scientific knowledge.
>It certainly sounds like science fiction...
>> Hmmm,,,
>> http://mprofaca.cro.net/iraqcia01.html
>> It looks like they have something - Nd:YAG lasers are mentioned. I'm pretty
>> sure that the internal hemorrhaging stuff is BS. The severe burning is also
>> probably BS - unless used at really close range.
>I've wondered, how effective might a chemical laser be as a "long
>range flamethrower"? I'm entirely unfamiliar with chemical laser
>design, so I can't even do BOTE calculations.
>Intuitively, I'd think that such a weapon could be used at long
>ranges as long as the target is in line-of-sight. Focussing over an
>area of perhaps a meter in diameter should be doable with a simple
>mirrors which aren't too large. The goal is to produce severe burns
>over a large area rather than penetrate.
It takes ~50 J/cm^3 to cause third-degree burns on exposed skin; if we
assume the target can duck and cover in one second, and that optical
path losses will add up to ~20%, the sort of weapon you describe will
need a continuous output of half a megawatt. At 25% efficiency, which
is pretty good for a chemical laser, you are handling two megawatts and
rejecting 1.5 megawatts of waste heat.
Can this be done? Yes. Will it weigh less than a ton? No.
If you like the effect, develop a WP round for a 20-30mm autocannon.
Cheaper, lighter, more reliable, more effective.
Charles R Martin
> "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
> news:m38zbev...@localhost.localdomain...
> > "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> writes:
> >
> > > According to this article:
> > > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25918
> > > Iraq has laser sidearms for its military. Supposedly, they were used in
> the
> > > Iran/Iraq war of 1981, and that the newer versions are more advanced.
> > >
> > > Is this BS? The source is credible, but what would this thing use for a
> > > power source? I suspect that it is chemical or gas-dynamic heated by
> > > combustion.
> >
> > Um, the credibility of the source seems a little questionable. The
> > logistics of putting that kind of force into the field without
> > detection, and the problems of concealing the forces -- especially
> > stashing them in Israel -- seem pretty much insuperable.
>
> Usually, worldnetdaily.com is credible, though the DEBKA reports tend
> towards heavy speculation. I suppose that the writer who put the
> information together may be shy in scientific knowledge. Shoot, I didn't
> even calculate the muzzle velocity necessary for a "super gun" to be able to
> shoot fifteen hundred miles (though they say that rocket assist is used).
> Maybe I ought to do some BOTE calculations.
>
> I'm wondering if that report is the result of a hacker getting into the
> system, or maybe the work of an inside hoaxter.
I don't think so -- it really does sound like the sort of thing where
someone who's trying to get Something Done "leaks" something to the
press that either confirms their own idea, or explained why the
opponents ideas were nonsense.
This used to make me crazy in the old days: I'd see something in, say,
Newsweek that said "The Soviets won't have weapon X in testing for at
least N years", and I'd have seen some intel about the Soviet's last
five tests ... but it was classified I Could Tell You But and saying
that we _knew differently_ would have meant revealing sources and
methods, or at least the effectiveness of sources and methods.
Or contrariwise, Kennedy's riff on the "Missle Gap". Jack Kennedy had
_seen_ the intelligence and _knew_ what the _real_ limits of the
Soviet ICBMs were. The Missle Gap was wholly invented ... but Nixon
couldn't _tell_ people about it, because that meant revealing S&M.
(Not that I don't think Nixon might have done it anyway, but I'm sure
Eisenhower would have had him shot.) Then, once JFK was in office,
they "discovered" there wasn't as much of a missle gap as they'd
"thought".
And it would be tougher than hell to do so in a way that surveillance
couldn't be used after the fact to identify the sites. (There are
some radar possibilities too; they've been used for archaeology in the
recent past, but I'm not sure what's open now, so you'll have to look
them up yourself.)
>
>
> >
> > As far as the prosecution of such a war once it started, you're going
> > to run into at least three serious problems (maybe more):
> >
> > - if you use ABC weapons, you have to protect your own troops from
> > them or you use up your own troops. If you're sufficiently
> > ruthless to use up your own troops, morale plummets, officers die
> > mysteriously, and units tend to disappear.
>
> I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
See, I'm old. We used to call them "Atomic, Biological, Chemical."
>
>
> >
> > - even if you _do_ protect your own troops successfully, staying in
> > ABC gear for any length of time seriously degrades operational
> > effectiveness, and (maybe more importantly!) morale. (And remember
> > that Saddam's troops are not exactly famous for high morale anyway.)
>
> NBC gear is a royal pain in the a**. I haven't had to spend too much time
> in MOP gear, but I haged every minute of it - especially in the summer (and
> I was in Germany at the time). Dealing with the charcoal-lined suit is bad
> enough. Add the rubber suit, and you have a sauna. Putting on the
> protective mask (gas mask) makes the whole thing almost unbearable. It's
> also hard as heck to shoot an M16 (or whatever) with that stuff on. It's
> difficult to get a good bead on the sites.
Then there's eating and peeing.
>
>
> >
> > - you have to calculate against the very great likelihood that once
> > any real WMD is used, the gloves will come off. One radiologic or
> > nuclear weapon, and it's very likely that massive total-war
> > bombing, or even return use of nuclear weapons, would become
> > acceptable.
>
> If Iraq nuked someone, I think that an ICBM wouldn't be too
> unreasonable.
I'd suspect we'd use whatever tac-nukes we still have in inventory,
delivered by F-117s and B-2s, but I agree in principle.
>
>
> >
> > This sort of thing shows up pretty often -- usually it's an infinitely
> > worst worst-case scenario that someone is pushing for political
> > reasons within some ministry.
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I think that someone had a heck of a fun
> time fabricating that story just to see how many people would swallow it.
>
> <stops, does some BOTE calculations, does a little internet research>
>
> On the other hand, there really WAS a Canadian scientist named Gerald Bull
> (not an astrophysicist, though), and he really did try to design a supergun
> for Iraq, and he really was murdered - supposedly by Mossad.
Oh, yeah, a lot of that stuff is ... shall we say ... resembles the truth.
> OK... I'm beginning to think "bad reporting".
I'm still holding out for some of each: bad fact checking (but then,
see the "Atlantis" thread) along with someone making up stories to get
some desired PR result.
>
>
> <stops and does some more googling - using "iraqi laser weapon">
>
> Hmmm,,,
> http://mprofaca.cro.net/iraqcia01.html
>
> It looks like they have something - Nd:YAG lasers are mentioned. I'm pretty
> sure that the internal hemorrhaging stuff is BS. The severe burning is also
> probably BS - unless used at really close range.
>
>
>
> Considering that Iraq has lots of motivation to build advanced weaponry, and
> they have no scruples about what they employ, that article is kind of scary.
> I think it is over-stated, but I am beginning to wonder if Iraq might have a
> few tricks that we haven't bothered to explore.
I wouldn't want to argue against that. I just don't buy the O-PLAN
this article suggested.
>
> I'm glad that our folks are prepared to be very careful.
>
>
>
>
> Ray Drouillard
>
>
>
--
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we
are powerful beyond measure. -- Marianne Williamson
Charles R Martin
> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote in
> news:OoaZ7.64434$va.33...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com:
>
> > "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
> > news:m38zbev...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> >> - if you use ABC weapons...
>
> > I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
>
> I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
Or TNN (hmm... Tiny Nasal gNomograms?)
--
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we
are powerful beyond measure. -- Marianne Williamson
Charles R Martin
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> > > "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
> > > > "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> - if you use ABC weapons...
> > >
> > > > I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
> > >
> > > I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
> >
> > No, he meant ABC (Anything But Catgirls) weapons.
>
> And what are WMD weapons? White Male Dictator's weapons?
On the off chance it was a serious question, "weapons of mass
destruction."
Besides, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
--
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we
are powerful beyond measure. -- Marianne Williamson
Charles R Martin
> gher...@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) wrote in
> news:a14oqv$p5h$1...@gw.retro.com:
>
> > Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >>Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
> >>> > "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> >>> >> - if you use ABC weapons...
> >>> > I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) weapons.
> >>> > I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
> >>No, he meant ABC (Anything But Catgirls) weapons.
>
> > I suppose it would be politically incorrect to point out that
> > the US uses a German-manufactured chemical warfare detection
> > scouting vehicle named the Fox.
>
> Unfortunately, it is ineffective against PBS (Pretzels/Beer/Sausage)
> weapons.
I don't doubt that. There were a couple of times after beer and a few
ganz kleine würstele that I was sorry *I* had to be in the same room
with me. Whoooof.
Charles R Martin
> It takes ~50 J/cm^3 to cause third-degree burns on exposed skin; if we
> assume the target can duck and cover in one second, and that optical
> path losses will add up to ~20%, the sort of weapon you describe will
> need a continuous output of half a megawatt. At 25% efficiency, which
> is pretty good for a chemical laser, you are handling two megawatts and
> rejecting 1.5 megawatts of waste heat.
>
> Can this be done? Yes. Will it weigh less than a ton? No.
>
> If you like the effect, develop a WP round for a 20-30mm autocannon.
> Cheaper, lighter, more reliable, more effective.
It really is still tough to beat the direct application of significant
amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the behavior of others.
--
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we
are powerful beyond measure. -- Marianne Williamson
Charles R Martin
> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> writes:
>
> >According to this article:
> >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25918
> >Iraq has laser sidearms for its military. Supposedly, they were used in the
> >Iran/Iraq war of 1981, and that the newer versions are more advanced.
>
> >Is this BS? The source is credible, but what would this thing use for a
> >power source? I suspect that it is chemical or gas-dynamic heated by
> >combustion.
>
> I suspect that the power source is as imaginary as the rest of the weapon.
> The article you cite is chock full of extraordinary claims unsupported by
> *any* evidence; credible sources tell you how they got the information they
> present.
>
> I might buy that some con artist sold the Iraqis a bunch of cumbersome,
> useless "laser pistols". But 75,000 troops deploying to the Mideast
> without the preparations being broadcast on CNN two months in advance,
> is ludicrous.
As with a lot of the "CIA covert operation" stories, I wish I *could*
believe we could pull something like that and make it work.
Ray
> > > - even if you _do_ protect your own troops successfully, staying in
> > > ABC gear for any length of time seriously degrades operational
> > > effectiveness, and (maybe more importantly!) morale. (And remember
> > > that Saddam's troops are not exactly famous for high morale
anyway.)
> >
> > NBC gear is a royal pain in the a**. I haven't had to spend too much
time
> > in MOP gear, but I haged every minute of it - especially in the summer
(and
> > I was in Germany at the time). Dealing with the charcoal-lined suit is
bad
> > enough. Add the rubber suit, and you have a sauna. Putting on the
> > protective mask (gas mask) makes the whole thing almost unbearable.
It's
> > also hard as heck to shoot an M16 (or whatever) with that stuff on.
It's
> > difficult to get a good bead on the sites.
>
> Then there's eating and peeing.
There is a special fitting on the M17A1 protective mask for drinking from a
canteen. I guess you could carry around a canteen full of some kind of
nutritious high-calorie broth if you think you might stay in the thing for
more than twelve hours. You're not supposed to live in them, though. This,
of course, supports your comment about why it's a bad idea to bio/chem
weaponry if there is any chance that it might blow back on you.
Standard doctrine for peeing was to simply relieve yourself in the suit. I
think that I would get a box of depends if I thought I would have to spend
much time in one of those things.
I believe there are some tanks and APCs that maintain a shirtsleeve
environment inside. The M1A2 Abrams, IIRC, has NBC gear built in. I
believe that it's just a bunch of plug-ins for the gear, though.
Ray Drouillard
Ray
"Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:m3666hs...@localhost.localdomain...
> Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> writes:
>
> > gher...@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) wrote in
> > news:a14oqv$p5h$1...@gw.retro.com:
> >
> > > Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > >>Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
> > >>> > "Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> > >>> >> - if you use ABC weapons...
> > >>> > I'll assume that you mean NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical)
weapons.
> > >>> > I will assume that you mean CBS (Catgirls/Bologna/Socks) weapons
> > >>No, he meant ABC (Anything But Catgirls) weapons.
> >
> > > I suppose it would be politically incorrect to point out that
> > > the US uses a German-manufactured chemical warfare detection
> > > scouting vehicle named the Fox.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it is ineffective against PBS (Pretzels/Beer/Sausage)
> > weapons.
>
> I don't doubt that. There were a couple of times after beer and a few
> ganz kleine würstele that I was sorry *I* had to be in the same room
> with me. Whoooof.
Did you get a toxic waste disposal permit for that?
Ray
Chad Irby
> It really is still tough to beat the direct application of significant
> amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the behavior of others.
Try nagging. It seems to work for my mom.
Ray
"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:k4zZ7.267009$oj3.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
>
> > It really is still tough to beat the direct application of significant
> > amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the behavior of others.
>
> Try nagging. It seems to work for my mom.
Did she always get the result that she desired?
Ray
Chad Irby
> "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It really is still tough to beat the direct application of significant
> > > amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the behavior of others.
> >
> > Try nagging. It seems to work for my mom.
>
> Did she always get the result that she desired?
At least as well as if she tried the high explosive route.
Ray
> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It really is still tough to beat the direct application of
significant
> > > > amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the behavior of others.
> > >
> > > Try nagging. It seems to work for my mom.
> >
> > Did she always get the result that she desired?
>
> At least as well as if she tried the high explosive route.
Which method do you consider to be more humane?
Ray
Chad Irby
> "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It really is still tough to beat the direct application of
> > > > > significant amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the
> > > > > behavior of others.
> > > >
> > > > Try nagging. It seems to work for my mom.
> > >
> > > Did she always get the result that she desired?
> >
> > At least as well as if she tried the high explosive route.
>
> Which method do you consider to be more humane?
High explosives. Much faster, less pain. Quieter, overall.
Isaac Kuo
>mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>>I've wondered, how effective might a chemical laser be as a "long
>>range flamethrower"? I'm entirely unfamiliar with chemical laser
>>design, so I can't even do BOTE calculations.
>It takes ~50 J/cm^3 to cause third-degree burns on exposed skin; if we
>assume the target can duck and cover in one second, and that optical
>path losses will add up to ~20%, the sort of weapon you describe will
>need a continuous output of half a megawatt. At 25% efficiency, which
>is pretty good for a chemical laser, you are handling two megawatts and
>rejecting 1.5 megawatts of waste heat.
So how heavy is a 2 megawatt chemical laser? Frankly, I don't know.
I do know that the technology is vaguely comparable to rocket
technology. Doing a BOTE calculation on a Estes Alpha III with
numbers taken from http://www.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_eqn.html#Example
The rocket produces 6N of thrust, or about 3000watts of thrust if
we assume an exhaust velocity of 1000m/s.
So to get 2,000,000 watts, about 667 of them are needed. But each
rocket is only about 20 grams, so that's still only 13 kilograms
for the engines AND fuel supply (sufficient for 1.5 seconds).
Double that to 26 kilograms to get a portable flamethrower-like
capacity of 3 seconds firing time. That's also not so different
from portable flamethrower weights.
But these numbers are pretty meaningless, because saying chemical
lasers are "roughly" comparable to rockets is outrageously
oversimplifying the situation.
>Can this be done? Yes. Will it weigh less than a ton? No.
>If you like the effect, develop a WP round for a 20-30mm autocannon.
>Cheaper, lighter, more reliable, more effective.
A 20mm autocannon isn't exactly manportable, and the WP capacity
is low. I believe the US Army developed a 4 tube recoilless rocket
launcher with 67mm worth of WP for the incendiary role...
Now, incendiary weapons never were incredibly more effective than
alternatives, except in particular special situations. I'm not
saying a portable chemical laser would change that. I'm just
curious what the design would really be like.
Isaac Kuo
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
>
> > It really is still tough to beat the direct application of significant
> > amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the behavior of others.
>
> Try nagging. It seems to work for my mom.
Explosives are more fun.
Charles R Martin
> "Ray" <Droui...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Charles R Martin <crma...@indra.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It really is still tough to beat the direct application of significant
> > > > amounts of high explosives as a way to guide the behavior of others.
> > >
> > > Try nagging. It seems to work for my mom.
> >
> > Did she always get the result that she desired?
>
> At least as well as if she tried the high explosive route.
It depends on the results desired. Nagging is far superior if the
guidance desired is "take out the garbage". Explosives are superior
if the objective is "`take out' the garbage".
Ray
> we assume an exhaust velocity of 1000m/s.
Actually, the exhause velocity is less than the speed of sound (1000 m/s is
somewhere around mach 3). I'm trying to remember the specific impulse of
the thing.....
Let's see... impulse is 6 NS, fuel is 20 g...
specific impulse is 0.3 NS/g (300 NS/Kg), which translates to an exhaust
velocity of 300 M/s
You can run that back through your calculations, or do a google search to
find the energy content of some common fuels, like gasoline, acetylene, etc.
Ray Drouillard
Matthew DeBell
>It takes ~50 J/cm^3 to cause third-degree burns on exposed skin; if we
>assume the target can duck and cover in one second, and that optical
>path losses will add up to ~20%, the sort of weapon you describe will
>need a continuous output of half a megawatt. At 25% efficiency, which
>is pretty good for a chemical laser, you are handling two megawatts and
>rejecting 1.5 megawatts of waste heat.
>
>Can this be done? Yes. Will it weigh less than a ton? No.
Hmm, so with a spot size more like a couple cm you'd have a weapon with the
power and heat-rejection requirements of a hair dryer.
How many J/cm^3 does it take to ignite vegetation?
--
Matthew DeBell
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> Or contrariwise, Kennedy's riff on the "Missle Gap". Jack Kennedy had
> _seen_ the intelligence and _knew_ what the _real_ limits of the
> Soviet ICBMs were. The Missle Gap was wholly invented ... but Nixon
> couldn't _tell_ people about it, because that meant revealing S&M.
I believe you have this backwards: *Nixon* had seen the intelligence (he
was vice president); Kennedy had not.
>...
Luke Campbell
> schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote in message news:<a14rp6$o42$1...@spock.usc.edu>...
> >mec...@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>
> >>I've wondered, how effective might a chemical laser be as a "long
> >>range flamethrower"? I'm entirely unfamiliar with chemical laser
> >>design, so I can't even do BOTE calculations.
>
> >It takes ~50 J/cm^3 to cause third-degree burns on exposed skin; if we
> >assume the target can duck and cover in one second, and that optical
> >path losses will add up to ~20%, the sort of weapon you describe will
> >need a continuous output of half a megawatt. At 25% efficiency, which
> >is pretty good for a chemical laser, you are handling two megawatts and
> >rejecting 1.5 megawatts of waste heat.
>
> So how heavy is a 2 megawatt chemical laser?
This is difficult to answer because (A) the military keeps the mass of its high energy lasers
classified, and (B) the military keeps the output powers of its high energy lasers classified.
Still, we can make some rough guesses. The THEL is listed as a "multi hundred kilowatt" laser,
and takes up three semi trailers, one of which generates the laser beam. The ABL is described
as a "megawatt class" laser, and occupies a 747, although only the back part of the plane is
filled with the equipment needed to generate the beam. I would guess tens of tons for a 2 MW
chemical laser, neglecting the fuel. Note that the power of these lasers is the power output in
the beam, not the input chemical energy in the fuel.
Luke
Luke Campbell
It depends on the vegetation, I'm sure. (Wet? Dry? Stems? Leaves? Color
of vegetation? Color of laser?)
If it helps, my colleages that work with lasers all generally have small holes
in various articles of clothing where the 10 watt lasers they were working
with ignited spots on said clothes.
Based on what I'd seen of the J/cm^2 needed to ignite various fabrics, between
about 20 and 80 J/cm^2 would do it if you've got dry vegetation.
Luke
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin wrote:
> >
> > Or contrariwise, Kennedy's riff on the "Missle Gap". Jack Kennedy had
> > _seen_ the intelligence and _knew_ what the _real_ limits of the
> > Soviet ICBMs were. The Missle Gap was wholly invented ... but Nixon
> > couldn't _tell_ people about it, because that meant revealing S&M.
>
> I believe you have this backwards: *Nixon* had seen the intelligence (he
> was vice president); Kennedy had not.
No, I meant it the way I said it: Kennedy was (among other things) on
the Armed Services Committee and saw the classified poop. One tends
to forget that senators are considered de jure to have the clearance,
and can make a pretty strong claim for "need to know" on about
anything. (I can dig out a source, but it's one of the umpteen books
called "Kennedy: some subtitle" and I'd have to dig.) The point was
that he could _lie_ about it without fear of contradiction.
This is not to suggest that others didn't do this, by the way, just an
example that I know can be gleaned from the open literature.
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> writes:
> > Charles R Martin wrote:
> > > Jack Kennedy had
> > > _seen_ the intelligence and _knew_ what the _real_ limits of the
> > > Soviet ICBMs were. The Missle Gap was wholly invented ... but Nixon
> > > couldn't _tell_ people about it, because that meant revealing S&M.
> >
> > I believe you have this backwards: *Nixon* had seen the intelligence (he
> > was vice president); Kennedy had not.
>
> No, I meant it the way I said it: Kennedy was (among other things) on
> the Armed Services Committee and saw the classified poop.
This is contrary to the usual histories; but if you say that you saw it
in a book somewhere, I will, if you prefer, aim my skepticism at the
book that you forgot the title of, instead of disbelieving you personally.
Charles R Martin
Try Chris Matthews' book: _Kennedy & Nixon : The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America_
Here's a quote from one review on Amazon:
As 1960 approached, it became apparent that Nixon and Kennedy
would go face to face for the prize coveted by both. By now the
tide had turned. .... On the issues, Kennedy was able to proceed
with the reckless abandon of an outsider, while Nixon was chained
to an administration which he could not undermine. While Kennedy
and Nixon were both aware of the preparations for the Bay of Pigs,
Nixon, while complaining privately about delays in the operation,
had to hold his tongue while Kennedy lashed the administration for
doing nothing about Castro.
Charles R Martin
BTW, I hope this means you now believe me personally, and will argue
with the histories.
Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > > > Jack Kennedy had
> > > > > _seen_ the intelligence and _knew_ what the _real_ limits of the
> > > > > Soviet ICBMs were. The Missle Gap was wholly invented ... but Nixon
> > > > > couldn't _tell_ people about it, because that meant revealing S&M.
Geofffrey.landis replied:
> > This is contrary to the usual histories; but if you say that you saw it
> > in a book somewhere, I will, if you prefer, aim my skepticism at the
> > book that you forgot the title of, instead of disbelieving you personally.
Charles R Martin retorted:
> Try Chris Matthews' book: _Kennedy & Nixon : The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America_
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684810301/qid=1010601101/sr=1-2/ref=br_lfbnb_b_2/002-4922278-6863258
>
> Here's a quote from one review on Amazon:
>
> As 1960 approached, it became apparent that Nixon and Kennedy
> would go face to face for the prize coveted by both. By now the
> tide had turned. .... On the issues, Kennedy was able to proceed
> with the reckless abandon of an outsider, while Nixon was chained
> to an administration which he could not undermine. While Kennedy
> and Nixon were both aware of the preparations for the Bay of Pigs,
> Nixon, while complaining privately about delays in the operation,
> had to hold his tongue while Kennedy lashed the administration for
> doing nothing about Castro.
I disbelieved the part where you said that Kennedy had access to
classified information proving that the Missile Gap was non-existent.
This quote has nothing to do with that subject.
Erik Max Francis
> I disbelieved the part where you said that Kennedy had access to
> classified information proving that the Missile Gap was non-existent.
> This quote has nothing to do with that subject.
Furthermore, I'm puzzled why he's quoting a _review_ of the book rather
than the book itself.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Laws are silent in time of war.
\__/ Cicero
Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
Erik Max Francis
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> writes:
>
> > This is contrary to the usual histories; but if you say that you saw
> > it
> > in a book somewhere, I will, if you prefer, aim my skepticism at the
> > book that you forgot the title of, instead of disbelieving you
> > personally.
>
> BTW, I hope this means you now believe me personally, and will argue
> with the histories.
I think it probably means exactly what it says.
Charles R Martin
Try Matthews' book.
But, just by the way, "how many missiles does the USSR have" is threat
assessment -- probably Top Secret, but nothing real fancy, and
absolutely needed for the job of the Armed Services Committee. Knowing
about the Bay of Pigs invasion would be special methods operations,
under the DDO and DCI, and would be Top Secret, multiple-codeword,
only-n-copies sort of stuff, and would _only_ be revealed to very
highly cleared and trusted people.
In other words, for the threat assessment data, Kennedy had both a
reason to see it and need-to-know, AND he apparently cognizant of much
more sensitive stuff.
Charles R Martin
> "Geoffrey A. Landis" wrote:
>
> > I disbelieved the part where you said that Kennedy had access to
> > classified information proving that the Missile Gap was non-existent.
> > This quote has nothing to do with that subject.
>
> Furthermore, I'm puzzled why he's quoting a _review_ of the book rather
> than the book itself.
Could it be something to do with just having said that I didn't have
the book at hand?
And with the review speaking specifically to my point, ie, that
Kennedy had knowledge that he lied about for political purposes?
I don't know if I've just hit a sort Kennedy-idolatry spot here, but
let me say again I'm NOT saying that JFK was particularly unusual in
doing this: he wasn't the first, he wasn't the last, not in either
party. It just _did_ frustrate me when I saw examples of it being
done when I knew it was happening.
No doubt added to my general cyncial attitude toward governments and
politicians.
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin wrote:
>
> > "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> writes:
> >
> > > This is contrary to the usual histories; but if you say that you saw
> > > it
> > > in a book somewhere, I will, if you prefer, aim my skepticism at the
> > > book that you forgot the title of, instead of disbelieving you
> > > personally.
> >
> > BTW, I hope this means you now believe me personally, and will argue
> > with the histories.
>
> I think it probably means exactly what it says.
Then he should consider reading the histories before he says it again.
Ray
"Charles R Martin" <crma...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:m3k7urp...@localhost.localdomain...
<snip>
> No doubt added to my general cyncial attitude toward governments and
> politicians.
Cynical, or realistic?
Ray
Charles R Martin
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>
> > Charles R Martin wrote:
> >
> > > "Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > This is contrary to the usual histories; but if you say that you saw
> > > > it
> > > > in a book somewhere, I will, if you prefer, aim my skepticism at the
> > > > book that you forgot the title of, instead of disbelieving you
> > > > personally.
> > >
> > > BTW, I hope this means you now believe me personally, and will argue
> > > with the histories.
> >
> > I think it probably means exactly what it says.
>
> Then he should consider reading the histories before he says it again.
>
Or, after a few minutes of web search:
Letter to _The Atlantic_:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/letters.htm
During the summer of 1960, long before the election, President
Eisenhower had arranged for Kennedy to receive a classified
briefing based on U.S. intelligence, including the high-resolution
reconnaissance-satellite photographs of the Soviet Union that
appear to have startled Kaufmann. The photographs showed that the
missile gap was, in fact, overwhelmingly in favor of the United
States: their eight ICBMs against our hundreds. That Kennedy
continued to use the issue, despite having learned the truth from
Eisenhower, made Ike believe that Kennedy was dishonest and
damaged the relationship between the two men, ....
-- Gordon Louttit Manhattan Beach, Calif.
Or try _Eisenhower and the Missle Gap_
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801427975/ref%3Dnosim/broughsbooks/002-4922278-6863258
Thinking about it, I may be remembering Kessler's _Sins of the Father_
Now, I've got a talk to give in a couple of hours, so I don't have
time do follow this much further, but I'll bet (given that the
briefings would have been recorded, since they _were_ classified) that
you can find plenty more.
Charles R Martin
Geoffrey A. Landis
Unless you can show an actual source, I will consider your opinions to
be personal opinions.
"I read it in a book somewhere once, but don't remember the title or
author of the book" is not a source.
Geoffrey A. Landis
Charles R Martin
> Your argument is unconvincing.
>
> Unless you can show an actual source, I will consider your opinions to
> be personal opinions.
>
> "I read it in a book somewhere once, but don't remember the title or
> author of the book" is not a source.
It's now been sources multiple times. Satisfied?
Geoffrey A. Landis
>
> It's now been sources multiple times. Satisfied?
Yes. Thank you for the reference.
Charles R Martin
> Charles R Martin wrote:
> >
> > It's now been sources multiple times. Satisfied?
>
> Yes. Thank you for the reference.
You bet -- saw your previous note just about 10 minutes after I sent
that.