Army Directed Energy Weapons, and More from CRS
U.S. Army efforts to develop directed energy weapons — such as lasers and microwave weapons — are surveyed in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.
Such weapons are probably years away from actual deployment by the Army, if indeed they ever become practical options.
“While DE weapons offer a variety of advantages over conventional kinetic weapons including precision, low cost per shot, and scalable effects, there are also some basic constraints such as beam attenuation, limited range, and an inability to be employed against non-line-of-sight targets which will need to be addressed in order to make these weapons effective across the entire spectrum of combat operations,” the CRS report said.
The status of some directed energy programs is obscured by secrecy, CRS said. “The classified nature of most of DOD’s HPM [high-power microwave] programs… makes public and academic examination of these programs problematic.”
The first DoD laser weapon ever to be approved for operational use was deployed aboard the USS Ponce (now decommissioned), according to the U.S. Navy.
See U.S. Army Weapons-Related Directed Energy (DE) Programs: Background and Potential Issues for Congress by Andrew Feickert, February 7, 2018.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations, February 8, 2018
Iran: Politics, Human Rights, and U.S. Policy, February 8, 2018
Yemen: Civil War and Regional Intervention, February 7, 2018
Rwanda: In Brief, February 7, 2018
The 10-20-30 Plan and Persistent Poverty Counties, February 8, 2018
Medicare Trigger, February 8, 2018
Women in Congress, 1917-2018: Service Dates and Committee Assignments by Member, and Lists by State and Congress, February 6, 2018
Federal Spending on Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: In Brief, February 6, 2018
Introduction to U.S. Economy: The Business Cycle and Growth, CRS In Focus, December 13, 2017
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”
Ask people what worries them most right now, and they’ll say the cost of living and their livelihoods, not climate change. But those concerns are not separate.