Comment by jmward01
5 hours ago
Range due to obstacles is greatly overcome with altitude. My point about the 13yo is that -you- think it is unworkable, but a country that doesn't mind the word 'genocide' thinks it is a fine definition. Camera tech quickly went this route right? 'you could mount that camera but we haven't done it and therefor won't' turned into multiple cameras covering every square inch of a city from multiple angles once the tech was easy enough. The 'easy enough' trend is clear here. Miniaturization, precision, ease of maintenance, etc make the reasons this hasn't been done rapidly fall away and make it clear that it will be done. There is a clear argument that is isn't, yet, realistic to be done but this is a clear step in that direction.
I don't think there is a clear argument that it isn't realistic to be done from a technology standpoint -- in other words, I don't think this laser meaningfully changes things from a capabilities standpoint. The necessary miniaturization and precision are available.
Now, you may think I have the facts wrong, here -- that we haven't had the kind of precise turret before, or that we can't deliver small arms ammunition with great precision -- but you don't come out and say that: you haven't said I have bad facts.
If we accept that the technical capabilities have been there for a while, then we need another explanation for what the hold up is. I have offered an alternative, which is that it comes down to doctrine or operational issues -- it's not easy to see how to deploy a weapon system that automatically targets people without creating huge practical problems. I offered two concrete cases in my earlier comment. Here again, you haven't really spoken to them: you haven't said, for example, A is not a problem and here's why not. You have just ignored them.
It is really starting to look like you have a story and you are sticking to it.