Re: Lasers in the colonies

On 29-Jan-02 at 00:38, Thomas Barclay (kaladorn@magma.ca) wrote:
> Okay, here's my counter arguments:
> 
> 1) You comments about lasers and the power 
> involved may or may not be right. Obviously the 
> US military finds the idea of a portable laser 
> weapon very feasible as they've got something 
> queued up. Once, of course, the power issue is 
> resolved.

I didn't say they were useless, only that they were
useless for shooting water based creatures.  Shooting
at armour now...

> 3) You might think you'll remain functional with 
> a 2mm hole burnt through your head,

> 4) The argument about a 2cm hole assumes 
> that I don't drag the beam across you or put it 
> on a wider beam. I think temporary or 
> permanent blinding plus a nice third degree 
> burn across a 4" wide strip of your head might 
> put you out of the fight.

Ah, you are counting on holes in the HEAD.  I prefer
my soldiers able to incapacitate by hitting head/
arms/legs/whatever.  

> 5) The argument about a 2cm hole ignores the 
> explosive effects of flash-heating the water in 
> your cells. BANG! Can you say chunks blown out! 
> OUCH! Probably quite disabling. 

If the spot turns to steam you have pre-made ablative
armor as the steam blocks the beam.  I'd _much_
rather have a cauterized 1cm deep hole in my chest
than have a 7.62mm piece of lead hit the front
and a 3cm piece of expanded lead leave the back.
(Yeah, I know the lead isn't 3cm, but the hole
 certainly looks like it is.)

And the implications of what I'm saying don't preclude
a laser that works and can kill people.  What they do
preclude is a battlefield with tanks and air support.
The laser that can chop a person in two can do the same
to a tank or an air vehicle at LOS ranges.  The big 
targets don't stand a chance.