On Sep 13, 3:47 pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:38 am, Ralph_S wrote:



On 13 Sep, 12:15, "
wrote:

On Sep 13, 7:09 am, Ralph_S wrote:

On 13 Sep, 05:17, wrote:

See:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...phalanx-03783/

Using a laser as a weapon really only make sense if speed is
essential.

But speed is ALWAYS essential when you're
working military idiots and the only thing they
know about EM is RADAR directors.
So that's why we even invented LASERS.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
.
Lasers are not particularly good at destroying anything. They're
hugely inefficient. If you want to kill somebody, use a bullet. If you
want to destroy a bridge, use explosives. If you want to kill a
projectile coming towards you at more than mach 1, then a laser makes
sense, because it arrives at its target almost instantaneously.

Apart from the laser-armed AC-130 idea that's floating around, most
uses of lasers as weapons that are under development or proposed deal
with some form of missile defense, where speed is more important than
efficiency.

Lasers weren't developed with any particular purpose in mind, let
alone a military one,

The Lasers you are talking about physics morons
and mental defect laboraties.
The people who more than an infintie amount
of moron double slit time to waste,
make DVDs, Sniper Rifiles, RPG Launchers,
moon rockets, and LAser(c) Printers, with them.


I'm can only guess what you mean, because your sentences don't make
sense.

I don't think that calling the physicists who actually developed
lasers morons for not foreseeing the many different uses for their
invention is justified. It works fine for the purposes they
envisioned. I have no idea how this is related to RPGs or moon
rockets, by the way.

Furthermore, it's completely beside the point. Unless I misunderstood
you, you wrote that lasers were invented for military purposes, when
they actually weren't. It didn't take the military long to come up
with military uses for them, but that's a different matter
altogether.

What exactly is your point here anyway? Are you simply making an
argument for argument's sake?

Ralph