Search Results: key

Everybody knows about drones and probably knows about Lasers being the great hope in combating them. Every country is working on them. The pic is off an Australian offering.

This little beauty comes stock standard with a 100 KW laser but can be optioned up to 150 KW. It is rated at 20 drones per minute but could be 30 with the 150KW option. It's range is 3 KM for a drone kill but can dazzle sensors at 8KM

I was listening to a podcast which suggested China would probably use paratroopers initially on Taiwan then use amphibious landings.

It is an obvious thought to think why not laser paratroopers as they float down? Below this laser is a flat plain. Why not pick off enemy paratroopers on the plain as well?

According to Google a 10 KW laser can kill a person and fully option this bad boy is 15 times higher. It probably doesn't pro rata but that could be 15x30 = 450 soldiers per minute. Useful.

Also according to Google, 5 mW permanently blinds people. 5mW/150KW = 30 micro seconds per shot. Your ability to disable enemy troops is only limited by how fast you can point the laser at the paratroopers eyes because it would blind them very quickly.

The key point is a purely defensive drone laser could be an extremely good offensive weapon.

I imagine if a laser is to kill an enemy combatant it will have to burn a hole into the heart, lung or brain. That could hurt. To blind probably hurts less but it leaves the enemy combatant permanently incapacitated.

I'm interested on what people think the ethics of Direct Energy Weapons fire on people are. I think if it can be done it will be done especially when it is an existential threat.

What do people think the ethics are? Multi choice can't cover it. So put it in the comments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-tariffs.html?unlocked_article_code=1.y08.Dy9M.ZdMazry8agHP&smid=nytcore-android-share

The key question for the justices on Wednesday was whether the president exceeded his authority when he used the 1977 emergency statute. Past presidents have relied on the law to impose sanctions or embargoes on other countries, but Mr. Trump is the first to use it to impose tariffs.

The conservative majority speakers suggested the administration’s position could represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch that would be difficult for Congress to reclaim. Justice Gorsuch warned of “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives” in Congress.

The justices grappled with a doctrine favored by the conservative legal movement. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority repeatedly relied on the “major questions doctrine” to invalidate many of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s key initiatives, including his student loan forgiveness program. The doctrine says presidential initiatives with “vast economic or political significance” must be clearly authorized by Congress.

The Trump administration has proposed or issued tariffs that cover roughly a third of U. S. imports under a nonemergency provision related to national security.

If the justices were to rule against Mr. Trump, the administration says it would be forced to unwind trade deals with other countries. The government might also have to pay billions in refunds to importers.The result could lead to economic ruin akin to the Great Depression. "It’s simply implausible” that Congress had “handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country, at any and all times.”