From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!laidbak!obdient!amiserv!bbs1984!swarner Wed Sep 16 21:23:35 EDT 1992
Article 6923 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!laidbak!obdient!amiserv!bbs1984!swarner
>From: swarner@bbs1984.chi.il.us (Steve Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Message-ID: <swarner.01tv@bbs1984.chi.il.us>
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:40:00 GMT
References: <s3NXqB1w165w@rivdell.sccsi.com>
Organization: Not an Organization
Lines: 49

In article <s3NXqB1w165w@rivdell.sccsi.com>, megazone@rivdell.sccsi.com
(Megazoner) writes:
>rwmurphr@crusader.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>
>> according to an article in the last month or so of new scientist.
>> The soldier of tomorrow will carry a laser to blind other soldiers.
>> and wear goggles to save his own eyes.  Expect battlefield opthalmalic
>> surgery to be a big part of 21rst century MASH units.
>
>
> Here's my $2.0x10^-2 worth...
>
> Having been an infantry soldier, I found that using all sorts of high 
>tech didn't help me very much while dodging bullets. Most of it we stored 
>in the IFV, which we always expected to blow up when it hit the front 
>lines. (Fortunately, this did not occur in Iraq. It's a long walk 
>anywhere.)
>
> All we ever wanted was lighter stuff. Big death rays would be nice, but 
>do you want to carry that stuff 30 miles? Humping batteries for the radio 
>was a pain as it was, imagine the cell for a portable laser...I routinely 
>discarded my flak vest 'cos it was too heavy and wouldn't stop much 
>anyway, just grenade fragments. I'm more worried about concussion.
>
> What can one improve with conventional weapons? All the neat new stuff 
>would break down after minimal use, cracked, peeled, dented, abused and 
>rattled about. You gonna tell me that the lenses on a heavy laser are 
>gonna last mounted on a tank moving in rough terrain? The ranging laser 
>on the M1 had those problems, even with turret stabilization.
>
> Give me lighter night vision stuff, lighter ammo, a bigger rifle that's 
>lighter than the last, and heavy artillery support.
>
> Besides, lasers are active emissions. I used to watch 'em and figure out 
>where the tanks were before they saw me. Result, dead tank.
>
>
>--
....and here's my .02 cents worth.
     I've worked with lasers for about 20 years now. Current technology using
MBE (Multiple Beam Epitaxy) waffer procedures has these critters fitting inside
of a matchbox now, using camera batteries as power sources. I find it all to
easy to see the 21st century soldier using BLINDING techniques (note I did not
say "Death Ray Beams) in the battlefield. On a similar note, one of the trade
journals ("Laser Focus") just had an article about a new surgical laser using
an Nd/YAG element pumped by a laser diode array. This device delivers its beam
thru a fiber-optic cutting tool and is about the size of a paperback book. It
too was designed for use in the battlefield. With the advance of Quantum well
lasers, the days of hauling around a power source the size of a truck are gone.


