backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by knutjb.. on Jul 24 at 3:52 PM


Raytheon's test of its laser weapons tracking system was a resounding success, scoring 4 UAV kills.  (Source: Raytheon)

Raytheon has released video of the test.  (Source: Raytheon)

The new laser version of Raytheon's Phalanx tracking system could be used to counter UAVs from hostile nations such as Iran (U.S. armed "Reaper" UAV pictured).  (Source: The Real Revo)
Company shows off video of lasers shooting down a drone

Even as the Northrop Grumman tests out its new 100 KW solid state laser cannon as part of a $98M USD Maritime Laser Demonstration program with the U.S. Navy to defend against ships, Raytheon is offering a new guidance system that may be capable of aiming laser batteries against airborne targets.

In May, the U.S. Navy coupled six solid-state lasers with an output of 32 kilowatts (the Navy's Laser Weapon System, LaWS) to Raytheon's Phalanx Close-In Weapon System sensors.  The result was successful kills of four unmanned aerial vehicles.

Raytheon is showing grainy black and white video of test for the first time at the U.K.'sFarnborough International Air Show 2010.

The tests were conducted near the Navy's weapons and training facility on San Nicolas Island in California's Santa Barbara Channel.  Phalanx used radio-frequency (radar) sensors and electro-optical tracking to direct the laser's aim on targets.

The results were impressive and easily surpassed Raytheon's 2006 destruction of a static mortar shell, and 2008 destruction of an incoming (in motion) mortar shell over land.  Still, Mike Booen, vice president of Raytheon's Advanced Security and Directed Energy Systems product line insists that the successful tests are only the start and that the full system will not be finalized until 2016, at the earliest.

Interestingly, the Phalanx system is nothing new.  It has typically been coupled, though with traditional munition based weapons, such as the 20-mm Gatling gun.  The laser-equipped system would likely more than double the range of the traditional Gatling gun.

The laser anti-aircraft batteries could be useful to counter hostile nations like Iran that have reportedly developed UAV capabilities.  Coupled with the Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) cannons, they could offer an unprecedented warship.  States Northrop spokesman Bob Bishop, "The MLD system we are under contract to build for [the U.S. Office of Naval Research] will be scalable to a variety of power levels.  That means that laser power can be added—or subtracted—to meet the level of response necessary to address the threat, all within the same modular laser weapon system."

The MLD program will complete its tests by the end of year.  The tests will be performed at 15 KW -- a mere fraction of the laser's full power.  If all goes well, Northrop Grumman may be able to test shots at higher power levels, afterwards.

Both the U.S. Army and the Air Force are also currently evaluating and testing laser weapons.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Paladin Tanks
By Cullinaire on 7/21/2010 8:08:13 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder how long until they fit this to tanks? I know Israel is working on a tank point defense system but this would take it to another level altogether.




RE: Paladin Tanks
By Amiga500 on 7/21/2010 8:20:26 AM , Rating: 3
Not very long. Mid to end of the decade if they wanted. It will probably take the form of 4 or 5 separate multi-T/R panels arrayed around the turret sides. Which would also have the advantage of being able to securely transmit/receive large swathes of information to/from airborne/spaceborne assets.

More interestingly, the Russian prototype PAK-FA has multiple locations for similar T/R panels located around the airframe. If* the Russians can ramp up their module transmit power (which I expect will happen given their recent jump in nanometre process technology), they may well be able to make a limited airborne version of this. All they have to do is fry the (very sensitive) seeker heads of the incoming AAMs.

Then its back to the dogfight, the F-22 can cope 'cos its got the kinematic performance to fight on a level playing field. The F-35 cannot.

*Its not really a question of if, but when. I believe they've been working on that area for some time...


RE: Paladin Tanks
By nafhan on 7/21/2010 10:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mid to end of the decade if they wanted.
I disagree with you here. The problem is power generation. New generation carriers, etc. have a lot of excess electric power capability with this in mind. At a minimum, I think we'd have to develop entirely new platforms (with a lot more electric power capability) to effectively use these on mobile land vehicles, and developing new platforms takes a while. So, I'd put 10 years as a minimum - depending on how much work has already been done in this respect, of course.
A short range, low power version explicitly to fry missile seaker heads does sound reasonable from a power standpoint, though. I think infrared lasers tend to be fairly efficient.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By Chernobyl68 on 7/21/2010 12:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
have to agree with you. 100KW is a large amount, but within the realm of possibility for ship-board deployment. putting something like this on a tank? It would need a separate power generation vehicle.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By AssBall on 7/21/2010 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder about a c-130?


RE: Paladin Tanks
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/21/2010 6:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
The AC-130 with laser capability uses a chemical laser to generate the reaction power to fire. Powering it with conventional electricity would require a very heavy battery and/or a turbine capable of generating it on the fly. Neither is particularly good for an aircraft, even an AC-130.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By Amiga500 on 7/21/2010 1:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
100 kw is 135 bhp...

The M1A3 Abrams tank is slated to produce over 1500 bhp at the shaft.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By nafhan on 7/21/2010 2:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the M1 is optimized for generating electrical energy, which is the same problem they've encountered attempting to outfit modern computer systems (and likely lasers) on older Navy ships.
Plus getting the rotational energy into a 100kw laser beam is non-trivial, and the laser itself is "a unit about the size of a couple garbage dumpsters stacked together" - making size an issue.
So, even if something the size of the M1 could do it, it would probably make more sense to have a purpose built vehicle.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By dgingeri on 7/21/2010 2:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
The M1 drive system is similar to a diesel train: engine runs a generator, generator runs electric motors for the wheels. So, in essence, the M1 is already putting all its power into electricity. So it should be easy to get a laser on an M1.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
I argue its not a power problem; computing the angle the actually aim said lazer is not an easy task, nor is keeping the lazer on a target long enough to cause damage. To me, computing is a bigger factor then power is.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By Amiga500 on 7/21/2010 4:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
You joking right?

How is tracking a target with an instantaneous response harder than tracking a target then calculating the time delay for a missile to arrive there?

You know how AESA radar works (particularly in track & jam modes)? It already does the tracking and aiming of EM waves.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By deputc26 on 7/21/2010 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 4
I believe 100Kw is the power present in the beam, which is only ~2% efficient. So multiply that by 50.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By Amiga500 on 7/22/2010 4:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
No no, current SSLs have efficiencies of around 10%....

So multiply by 10. :-)

And watch that efficiency factor rise continuously over the next few years.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By bh192012 on 7/22/2010 6:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
Next, figure out what your going to do with the other 90% of that energy that is now heating your tank up.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By moenkopi on 7/22/2010 5:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
errr THAT IS 100KW infrared light output from a solid state laser! WHO KNOWS WHAT THE POWER INPUT IS! More than likely, it 1000times more than that!


RE: Paladin Tanks
By TimberJon on 7/22/2010 11:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
Great post Nafhan, yet a min of 10 years is still a bit too soon. You hit the problem on the head tho, power capacity.

Nobody seems to get that you cant slap a big alternator or other generator on a tank and produce laser-grade power. The key here is a fusion power plant shrunk down to a commercialized size for use in a tank, helicopter, truck, etc..

We need the ITER complete before the real benchmarking can begin. Then we will have the opportunity to ramp up the power and increase the excess that can be shunted off to power other systems. ITER will be huge. It has to be proven and well understood before miniaturized versions can even be conceptualized. When they get down in size, THEN they might get fitted into a tank, or a bipedal walker at that point..

Tracks or wheels... or two legs. The tank that holds such a powerplant would need to be larger than our 75-80 tonners, but might also be a tad faster utilizing electric motors at the drive wheels. With enough power to work with.. the motors could be electric for wheels, tracks, rotors, lasers, and even servos and artificial musculature for things like legs.

We aren't there yet. We need a mobile source of high energy output. ITER supposedly won't be powered up until 2021 or so. I expect some power breakthroughs to happen within 5 years after first startup. For the time being.. where's the outlet?


RE: Paladin Tanks
By marvdmartian on 7/21/2010 9:02:04 AM , Rating: 5
More importantly, how long before they can fit these things on SHARKS , baby?? Yeah!!


RE: Paladin Tanks
By driver01z on 7/22/2010 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
on their heads! on their FRICKIN HEADS


RE: Paladin Tanks
By jesman0 on 7/21/2010 11:04:44 AM , Rating: 4
Paladins are OP, Shamans should get them instead.


RE: Paladin Tanks
By Anoxanmore on 7/21/2010 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
You have not enough minerals. :D


RE: Paladin Tanks
By Jedi2155 on 7/22/2010 12:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
You must construct additional pylons.


Cool and Scary at the same time.....
By sapiens74 on 7/21/2010 7:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly never thought I'd see such powerful Laser weapons in my lifetime. It seems in the next 20 years they may be the weapon of choice for precision battles.




RE: Cool and Scary at the same time.....
By michal1980 on 7/21/2010 7:46:27 AM , Rating: 4
I hope they make G.I. Joe (animated show) sounds.

peeeewooo, peeewooo.

And come in different colors so we know who's good and bad.


RE: Cool and Scary at the same time.....
By Mitch101 on 7/21/2010 9:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
GI Joe?

Im with Jason Mick's first image lets make some AT-AT's for the military.

For the Navy we need some sharks. No mutated sea bass.


RE: Cool and Scary at the same time.....
By webstorm1 on 7/21/2010 9:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
What if they are ornery?


RE: Cool and Scary at the same time.....
By wiz220 on 7/21/2010 11:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
Or perhaps, ill-tempered?


By Chernobyl68 on 7/21/2010 12:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
at least, ill tempered.


Mirrors?
By dj LiTh on 7/21/2010 5:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
What would be the effect at shooting this thing at a mirror? Would it bounce off, or would it burnt thru it? If it bounces off, then how long will it take someone to figureng out to put a thin reflective strip on a UAV or tank or ship or whatever. Also what about those invisibility things that bend light around it... I seriously dont know, anyone have the answer?




RE: Mirrors?
By afkrotch on 7/21/2010 9:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
It'll burn through. A perfect mirror will absorb absolutely zero light, but there's no such thing. They absorb a small amount of the light and generate heat. Eventually it'll get hotter and you'll burn through.

A cheap mirror in your bathroom is as good at stopping a high powered laser as a t-shirt is at stopping a bullet.

Also, what type of laser are you trying to stop. A thin relective strip isn't doing much against a CO² laser. Unless you plan on strapping some thick shiny gold mirrors on your UAV or tank or diamond lenses to bend the light away.

All in all, the protection will just weigh too much on top of the protection for standard projectile weapons.


RE: Mirrors?
By Amiga500 on 7/22/2010 4:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: Mirrors?
By PrinceGaz on 7/22/2010 7:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
How about a highly reflective ("military grade" if you like) mirror with a highly thermally conductive layer underneath to spread all energy not reflected by the mirror over a quite large area?

We're all familiar here with getting rid of large amounts of heat from small areas. Now I know that 200W from an overclocked CPU is quite different from perhaps 5KW which may be absorbed by the mirror (assuming the mirror is 95% efficient and is hit by a 100KW beam), but 5KW or more is certainly very manageable with what might be called "thermal armour". Hell even the full 100KW without any sort of mirror could be managed with a cooling system like a typical car engine has.

These energy weapons have the major problem of
a) inefficiency in beam generation
b) ability for the target to reflect/scatter/dissipate and spread the absorbed energy if designed with that in mind

Currently, energy weapons are not considered a threat so no measures are taken to protect against them. Rather like medieval villagers throwing stones against an unarmoured intruder with a sword. Now give the intruder decent armour and all the stones bounce off it with no real effect, just like these energy weapons will when the target has been protected with "thermal armour"


RE: Mirrors?
By Danish1 on 7/22/2010 8:14:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yes that's for sure, once energy weapons are viable then defense measures against them will become a priority and the age old arms race will pick up in that field as well.


RE: Mirrors?
By geekman1024 on 7/21/2010 11:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Laser is concentrated light. You can stand under the sun for hours, but how long can you withstand a concentrated light focused by a magnifying glass?


RE: Mirrors?
By EJ257 on 7/22/2010 9:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
If there is any form of countermeasure I bet it would be something along the lines of the space shuttle's heat shield tiles. With an ablative armor like that it would be able to shed the heat as it flies.


This is a small example of why...
By Amiga500 on 7/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: This is a small example of why...
By HotPlasma on 7/21/2010 10:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'll bet you that by the end of the decade we'll have F-35s flying around with lasers on them.

Badass.


RE: This is a small example of why...
By Chernobyl68 on 7/21/2010 12:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
doubt it. Solid state lasers need a large electrical supply which a fighter jet does not have in excess. Even the 747-based ABM laser deployment was a chemical laser, IIRC.


RE: This is a small example of why...
By 91TTZ on 7/21/2010 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 1
While figures like "32 KW laser" sound impressive, the power requirements are not much at all. 32 KW is equal to about 43 hp.

1 gallon of gasoline contains the energy to provide about 39 KW for an hour.


RE: This is a small example of why...
By 91TTZ on 7/21/2010 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
False. This laser is the equivalent of 43 hp. Not a large amount of energy. Jet engines have tens of thousands of hp.


By PlasmaBomb on 7/22/2010 9:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
You are confusing thrust with available electrical power. While the F-35 may have vast quantities of the former (~28k lbf dry thrust) equating to 97kHp at supercruise, it doesn't have any spare electrical power (the latter), in fact the F-35C's (naval variant) Hamilton Sundstrand power generator was mistakenly designed to only 65% of the required electric output , and had to be redesigned to accomodate the existing power demand from the flight electronics!


By Amiga500 on 7/21/2010 1:51:17 PM , Rating: 1
You might get an F-35 with one laser... namely the AESA radar in the nose. Not much use if a missile is coming in your 7 o'clock is it?

Which is why I specifically talked about the distributed system on PAK-FA which gives full 360 deg coverage.


By Beenthere on 7/21/2010 11:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
It's a pity but with the crackheads in N.K., China, Iran, etc. we're gonna need these defenses.




By afkrotch on 7/21/2010 9:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
I can understand NK and Iran, but why China?


By geekman1024 on 7/21/2010 11:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
China will own your base with Kung Fu. and Pandas.


Great kid!
By ZachDontScare on 7/21/2010 2:35:23 PM , Rating: 3
Now dont get cocky.




question?
By Kutcher on 7/21/2010 12:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
Are these high powered lasers still reflective in the same way as traditional lasers? Cause if so some dude running around with a mirror could cause some serious damage! Not to mention giant mirrors in orbit would allow international laser fights...awesome!




But does it make popcorn?
By miteethor on 7/21/2010 1:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't the entire premise of the movie Real Genius about a bunch of college kids that made a laser like this? The miltary was going to use the laser to take out human targets from a space based weapons platform. Now I'm thinking that will be the next logical step...




Forecast: fog
By notposting on 7/21/2010 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder how well it will work in the fog...not much use at sea if all the enemy has to do is wait for a nice foggy morning.




unnecessary bigotry
By Xpl1c1t on 7/22/2010 3:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new laser version of Raytheon's Phalanx tracking system could be used to counter UAVs from hostile nations such as Iran (U.S. armed "Reaper" UAV pictured). (Source: The Real Revo)


quote:
such as Iran




"...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By hubbabubbagum on 7/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By Lord 666 on 7/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By martinrichards23 on 7/21/2010 8:35:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Shutup terorrist loving troll


Respond with a rational argument next time.

You could have pointed out that Iran has done a series of aggressive things (taken hostages a number of times, Lockerbie bomb etc.).

You could also have justified the times the US has interfered within Iran.

Telling someone to just shut up and insulting them weakens your point of view.


By dubldwn on 7/21/2010 12:17:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You could have pointed out that Iran has done a series of aggressive things...Lockerbie bomb


No.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By gamefoo21 on 7/21/2010 12:56:54 PM , Rating: 1
The US basically installed the current government and Iranians hatred toward the US.

The US/Britain screwed up when they forced a revolution, and installed a 'pro-west' dictator. All because the wanted oil... Remind you of someplace else?


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By dgingeri on 7/21/2010 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
um, no. Remember when the Iranian revolution happened? Carter was president. They took several American hostages that they didn't release for over a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

the Iranian government is an Islamic government that ousted the pro-American (Shah) government. They have been very hostile to us since then.

Nobody mentioned their aggressive actions against many ships at the entrance to the Persian Gulf (Strait of Hormuz), including playing chicken with a US Navy Destroyer.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U3TFRG0

They aren't so innocent as they seem, the media, including American media, just likes to bash anything American.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, YOU forgot to mention that the "pro-American (Shah) government" was run by a brutal dictator while being backed by the US, as he was anti-communist (which coincidentally was the same exact thing the US did in Vietnam, and we know how that turned out).

And people forget, Imanutjob (my nickname for Irans leader) was third in the polls with a week to go, until a certain US President who shall remain nameless decided to make a snide comment about Irans "democracy". Imanutjob used that to strenthen his pro-US position, and became our biggest headache.

The lesson being:
A: Don't back brutal dictators, whatever the reason
B: Don't make snide comments about other countries "democracies" (free or otherwise) until AFTER the elections end.


By knutjb on 7/24/2010 3:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
You need to go back and see what happened to Iran. The Shah was a bad guy, the Ayatollah even worse. We had monitoring stations in Iran for the cold war, look at the map, it was that and not oil as so many cry about.

We are not an awful nation but we have made some mistakes and one of those was not going in to rescue our embassy immediately after the overthrow. That failure by Carter only emboldened the new and very violent regime.

Since the overthrow Iranians have become more oppressed by the same kind of violence the Shah used. On top of that, the newly emboldened Ayatollah expanded his influence into Lebanon, Gaza, and meddles in the region.

So which is the lesser of evils? I think the Shah because he could have, eventually, been pressured into backing off the public and he primarily kept his violence domestic. The Ayatollahs, the real leaders, blow off any attempt by the international community to change their ways and create a number of other problems.


By General Disturbance on 7/21/2010 3:38:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the Iranian government is an Islamic government that ousted the pro-American (Shah) government. They have been very hostile to us since then.


Ooooohhh, oh nooos! They've been hostile by not talking to us much since their population did the only patriotic thing a typical American WON'T do, and overthrew their fraudulent gov't for one the people wanted.

quote:
Nobody mentioned their aggressive actions against many ships at the entrance to the Persian Gulf (Strait of Hormuz), including playing chicken with a US Navy Destroyer.


Ooohhh my, how can this stand? They're being "aggressive"! They're not letting us walk all over them and steal from them and they're defending their territorial waters and borders! Oooohhh what aggression they're SO scary!

/This is why the world hates you.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By afkrotch on 7/21/2010 10:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ooohhh my, how can this stand? They're being "aggressive"! They're not letting us walk all over them and steal from them and they're defending their territorial waters and borders! Oooohhh what aggression they're SO scary!


International laws allow innocent passage of military vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran of course threatened to seal off the Strait of Hormuz for any vessels. Both commercial and military.

After sending 5 battle groups (as in, 5 aircraft carriers, with up to 450 aircrafts, including about 40 escort ships) to the coasts of Iran, they sure seemed to stfu.


By hubbabubbagum on 7/22/2010 10:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
International law also makes the US invasion of Iraq illegal.

Or did you want it both ways?


By spread on 7/21/2010 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
You tellim Bo! Now comme on over here and help me out with these here freeedom fries. The Glenn Beck show's comin on.


By threepac3 on 7/21/2010 8:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah there couldn't possibly be another reason...?


By bug77 on 7/21/2010 8:36:51 AM , Rating: 5
Quite the contrary. They have been known to throw 444 days long parties for americans sometimes.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By amanojaku on 7/21/2010 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
Iran is a hostile nation, and it's hostility began in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution. Read up on the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; he started all the mess. Iran is pretty much at odds with everyone, including Muslim countries. It just doesn't have the military might to start a fight and win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By hubbabubbagum on 7/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By NanoTube1 on 7/21/2010 9:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah right.

Furthermore, Iran never launched any terror campaign against the US. Al Aqsa brigades ring a bell? Mahdi army anyone? Taking US citizens hostage for 444 days? Arming Hizballah (the same guys that blew the Marines barracks in lebanon)?

I can go on and on. The only reason why they are not openly attacking the US is that they do not have the military might.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By Kurz on 7/21/10, Rating: 0
By Anoxanmore on 7/21/2010 10:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
After you slept with her first. :)

You forgot that part.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By bug77 on 7/21/2010 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well... they wouldn't need to wage a terror campaign if we didn't meddle in their country.


And you came to that conclusion how? By their own words, they won't rest until the whole world bows to islam and all infidels are history. American/jewish/whoever presence in the Middle East is just the pretext of the day.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By TerranMagistrate on 7/21/2010 11:05:57 AM , Rating: 3
Ignorance probably.

How else does one ignore the basic fact that the Iranian regime is an fanatical Islamic theocracy with some rather ominous Islamic aspirations for the West. Their nuclear program being just one of several means to that end.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By MojoMan on 7/21/2010 2:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Be careful who you call ignorant. Nobody is saying they aren't a hostile regime. However... Study the term blow back. What we are saying is we're simply giving them a reason to fight us. Even for religious reasons it is historically hard to get people to get up and go fight a war, especially against a far off country. As soon as you start messing with people's home turf though... All of the sudden that validates their religious leanings, and it becomes a rallying cry. Imagine someone invading our country "preemptively." Your reaction is to protect your home, your family, and your country. Oh... When you do defend yourself, or counter-attack, the world will look at you can go, see? We needed to attack. Look how hostile they are!

Lol...

I see some of you, at least, do your own reading instead of believing everything the government and media tells you.


By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Religion is nothing more then an excuse by a nations leaders to garner natonalistic support.

The saddest part of Iran is a majority of people have a positive view of the US, but the US keeps acting like the reverse is true.


By afkrotch on 7/21/2010 10:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is, we will be damned if we do and damned if we don't. Somalia is a prime example. There to help, we get fucked. Leave and never help again, we get fucked for not helping.


By MatthiasF on 7/21/2010 9:29:32 AM , Rating: 3
What democracy? The Shah was a MONARCH! The country was more like a dictatorship, no democracy involved at all.

Much like most of the rest of the region.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By amanojaku on 7/21/2010 9:57:06 AM , Rating: 5
I know you're not serious, because that made no sense at all. But I'll play along...

The revolution happened for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with furthering Iranian democracy. In fact, the end result was a return to theocracy, where religion rules the state. The Iranian people were AGAINST the idea of Westernizing, which meant treating women as equals (many women supported equal rights, many men didn't), giving religious minorities the ability to hold office, and reducing the power of religious groups.

The Ayatollah managed to rally conservatives to his cause and they ousted the progressive, but arrogant and sometimes incompetent, Shah Pahlavi. Immediately afterward the economy collapsed, there was social unrest, and all the democratic groups (such as the National Democratic Front) were destroyed. Iran pretends to be a democracy, but you'll notice that it dictates more than it listens. Ahmadinejad calls himself a president, but Iran is really run by the Supreme Leader.

Iran is still intolerant: women still do not have equal rights, religious minorities are still treated as inferior, and the religious majority has a say in everything.


By alphadog on 7/21/2010 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 1
> The Ayatollah managed to rally conservatives to his cause

Apparently not the conservatives in the US. Can't all conservatives just get along?!? :)


By inperfectdarkness on 7/21/2010 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 4
i'm glad someone else on here actually understands the real truth behind iran's history.

additionally, iran has been a LONG-TIME supporter of terrorist organizations (hamas, hezbollah, etc). that alone should cause any democracy-lover to question the validity of the iranian state under its current government.

apparently there are a lot of people on daily-tech who forget that until the revolution, iran was a key ally of the USA in the middle-east. there's a reason they got F-14's from us.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran is still intolerant: women still do not have equal rights, religious minorities are still treated as inferior, and the religious majority has a say in everything.


Funny, this sentence equally describes Isriel; are you arguing they are an intolerant nation as well?

quote:
The revolution happened for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with furthering Iranian democracy.


Wrong again; The Primary reason for the revolution was to rid the country of the US backed Shah, who was little more then a brutal dictator that had US backing because he was anti-communist. The religious undertones didn't appear until after the revolution ended, when conservatives in Iran created the Supreme Leader position. [Its important to note decisions by the SL can technically be voted, as the origional attempt was to create a form of democracy where religion would have an equal place with law, ironically simmilar to Isriel. As you can see, however, conservatives ended up with more power, and the country veered far to the right.]


By ekv on 7/21/2010 9:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny, this sentence equally describes Isriel; are you arguing they are an intolerant nation as well?
I disagree. Since when did Israel invoke a news black-out for the entire country? at a time when political dissidents were being lured to demonstrations, then attacked by state police and in some cases murdered.

No, I think the question is, are you arguing that Israel is an intolerant nation? Btw, are you deliberately mis-spelling "Israel"?


By gamerk2 on 7/21/2010 3:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read up on the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; he started all the mess.


Read up on the Shah of Iran and his brutal dicatorship; he was the root cause of the Iranian Revolution. Hence why backing dictators never works.

Look at Irans point of view: The west took land that belong to islamic states to create Isriel, backed several brutal dictators in the region (The Shah of Iran, Saddam, the Saudi Kings, etc), and then expanded their War on Terror to Iraq under false pretenses. Throw in about 1,000 years of Religious undertones, and you make it easy to cause radical elements to rise up and sieze control.


RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By Daniel8uk on 7/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: "...hostile nations such as Iran..."
By ZachDontScare on 7/21/2010 2:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran has never acted aggressively against the US


Oh, so you are saying they weret/arent supplying IED's to insurgents in Iraq? IED's that killed many American and allied military personal, not to mention Iraqis who happen to be at the wrong market or funeral.


By echtogammut on 7/21/2010 7:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick is a trolling god. I need to create a news site for him and somehow capture the comment revenue he generates.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki