Why don't we have particle beam and laser weapons yet?

because the m in e=mc2 means that kinetic energy weapons are best energy weapons in most situations and projected energy is a gigantic fucking hassle that does not have the staying power of variously shaped rocks being thrown at something.

Maybe at some point far in the future when we have superbatteries capable of holind 1.21 jigawatts in our pockets shooting particle accelerators at people might be practical. But ONLY because we wont have to locate a a suitable rock.

Tossing a rock at something is always the best bet at surely delivering an un-hamperable and reliable strike.

>>31626952
because technology isn't quite there to produce a reliable beam/laser/rail gun. Rail/coil guns are in testing but the "rails" IIRC are not strong enough to withstand more than a few shots before needing replacement, so i would assume the same for effective weaponized lasers, not sure on particle weapons tho.

>>31626952
Have you been asleep for the last three years?

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/navy-demo-150-kw-laser-weapon-destroyers

File: 1467071558455.jpg (21KB, 300x562px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x562px

>>31627029
First post, best post

>>31626952
Because a cannon firing an explosive shell gets the job done just fine and costs much less.

A laser strong enough to instantly kill a man or pierce a tank's armor is going to need a nuclear reactor to keep it running for any length of time with a useful rate of fire, and even the slightest damage to its lenses will make it inoperable. Plus, a laser's range is limited by line of sight, so you can't fire over terrain or beyond the horizon.

The advantage in terms of perfect accuracy just isn't worth all the drawbacks.

>>31626952

>A laser is a focused beam of light
>Light heats shit up
>You can melt stuff at a high temperature

Would it be plausible to create an exrremely bright laser that could melt armor extremely quickly?

>support aircraft with a Fricken laser
>that can kill tanks
>it'll be the next iteration of the bbbrrrttt; the zzzaaappp

asking for a friend.

>>31626952
Lasers have been weaponised in some some or another since the 80s.

Particle beams are a whole 'nother can of worms since they need to be focused as shit to do anything dangerous, and that requires a hell of a lot of power to do. As the first post said, why bother with that when you can throw a rock? Or very many rocks.

>>31627132
We already have very effective heat shield technology

was there one of these in Under Siege 2? a Segal classic

>>31627029
what the hell does general relativity have to do with this

>>31627326
Because rocks anonymous. A bigger rock grabs a larger pussy.

>>31627029
I think you meant 1/2*m*v^2

File: 1435803625781.jpg (450KB, 640x657px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 640x657px

>>31627029
>Ten thousand years later, we're still just throwing rocks at each other, just faster and more explosive.

Mind=blown.

>>31626952
Firstly we do, secondly because it's niche compared to conventional chemical propellant weapons. Lasers are more complicated, expensive, delicate, and on top of that they consume a massive quantity of energy to fire.

File: Super MAC stations.png (219KB, 640x272px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 640x272px

>>31626952
Because Super MACs are cooler and easier to build.

>>31630498
My nigga

>>31626952
As far as orbital artillery, you're much better off just dropping a tungsten telephone pole from orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

>>31626952
We do have laser weapons. The USN is deploying a laser cannon component to CIWS.
>can't juke a laser
>ship already has a reactor
>burning a hole through the missile is enough to make it pop early and save the ship

>>31627029
Only takes a few hundred kilowatts to work. Already have a laser CIWS on the USS Ponce.

Because that would be very expensive

>>31626952
>Why don't we have particle beam and laser weapons yet?
We have an atmosphere.

>>31627096
No it isn't. He completely misunderstands e=mc^2.

>>31626952
We have laser weapons but we don't have particle beam weapons because particle beams suck dick as weapons.

>>31627326
>>31633845
Actually referencing mass-energy equivalence works here, because the only way an actual particle beam is going to be useful is if you move particles in a beam really, really, really fast. For all of that work you would just be better off using a linear motor to accelerate a dumb slug of metal.

Sure it doesn't explain the why but it isn't a bad thing to reference.

File: 1466759322010.png (93KB, 467x496px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 467x496px

>>31630498
>Rods from God

>>31626952
Particle beams are currently only good for scientific purposes. Weaponizing it takes too much power and size, and it will be that way throughout this century.

>>31627132
>the high tech US army is foiled by tinfoil