Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boeing's CHAMP Missile Uses Radio Waves To Remotely Disable PCs

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the computer-time-is-over-billy dept.

The Military 341

Dupple writes "During last week's test, a CHAMP (Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project) missile successfully disabled its target by firing high power microwaves into a building filled with computers and other electronics. 'On Oct. 16th at 10:32 a.m. MST a Boeing Phantom Works team along with members from the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate team, and Raytheon Ktech, suppliers of the High Power Microwave source, huddled in a conference room at Hill Air Force Base and watched the history making test unfold on a television monitor. CHAMP approached its first target and fired a burst of High Power Microwaves at a two story building built on the test range. Inside rows of personal computers and electrical systems were turned on to gauge the effects of the powerful radio waves. Seconds later the PC monitors went dark and cheers erupted in the conference room. CHAMP had successfully knocked out the computer and electrical systems in the target building. Even the television cameras set up to record the test were knocked off line without collateral damage.'"

cancel ×

341 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

My computer has a tin-foil hat. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751643)

What now?

Re:My computer has a tin-foil hat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751677)

They are already working on another missile that will remove tinfoil hats from computers within buildings.

Re:My computer has a tin-foil hat. (5, Funny)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 2 years ago | (#41752247)

Tin foil? Everything now is ALUMINUM foil, which does nothing to block government waves! They haven't made TIN foil since WWII. Oh they SAY it was because they needed the tin for the war effort, but the truth is they discovered tin was the only effective shield against their new toys so they made sure nobody could get it anymore!

=Smidge=

Forget tinfoil hats (3, Funny)

jimbodude (2445520) | about 2 years ago | (#41751663)

I need a tinfoil house!

holy shit the RIAA/MPAA is going (0)

0xdeaddead (797696) | about 2 years ago | (#41751673)

to love this tech loaded up into drones....

Faradays cage (2)

Spectrumanalyzer (2733849) | about 2 years ago | (#41751675)

Will take care of that issue.

Re:Faradays cage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751773)

Not if you leave the door open...

Re:Faradays cage (5, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41751795)

Excuse my ignorance on this one, but if the missile disrupts electrical systems, how is a Faraday cage going to help? Assuming that your generation is not self contained, would such a disruption take out the electrical system outside of the Faraday cage? And if there is a sufficient spike, still do damage to devices inside the cage? Yea, I imagine with sufficient surge protection and battery backup you might be able to withstand the attack, but in all seriousness, only a really hardened target would have a chance. In the era of asymmetric warfare, the U.S. would be unlikely to face an enemy with this type of planning and resources. And if it were symmetric conflict, I doubt the United States would be worried about such a target attack. Instead they would cripple infrastructure or simply take out the building.

The more likely use case would be conducting a targeted raid and using a weapon like this to ensure that all security systems and communications systems were disabled right before the raid. Think Bin Laden compound.

The even more likely scenario is that this is a way of making some companies very rich and this weapon will never see use.

Re:Faradays cage (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41751963)

>Excuse my ignorance on this one, but if the missile disrupts electrical systems, how is a Faraday cage going to help?

The microwaves doesn't cause sufficient voltage spikes in the electrical power going into the building - that takes an EMP to happen. The microwaves causes voltage surges at the junction level in the microelectronics in the machine itself, where the threshold for a "fry" is much lower.

A faraday cage, like the one that keeps you from being irradiated with 1.5kW of radio waves as you stand in front of your microwave oven waiting for the popcorn, would be sufficient to keep the electronics inside the building working. Either build a room or shield the whole building with mesh.

Eine kleine chicken wire

--
BMO

Re:Faradays cage (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41752095)

Can you comment on the summary and article's claim that it had taken electrical systems off line? I seriously don't understand the mechanics behind all of this and would like to understand a little bit more.

Re:Faradays cage (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41752205)

Power supplies, especially the ones in computers and in cameras and everything else except things like fluorescent lamp ballasts, have transistors. These transistors get fried at the junctions.

You can't aim a microwave signal at a power line or transformer and get the desired result here. The wavelength is too short.

Note that the fluorescent lights are still on in the room in the photograph.

--
BMO

Re:Faradays cage (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41752117)

Exactly what I was thinking.

So this technology is already defeated before it got off the ground.

Re:Faradays cage (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41752233)

Or own a house with aluminum siding with aluminum screens on aluminum storm window retrofits. anyone that has lived in this typical house in the urburbs will tell you that it's highly effective at keeping out attacks like this, as well as Cellular service.

Re:Faradays cage (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | about 2 years ago | (#41752119)

I'm sure it works great against any kind of wired equipment (as the leads work as great antennas to pick up the pulse), but what of those fancy laptops with aluminum cases? Cell phones, especially if off? You'd think that people who are important enough for the government to go after them with something like this would be aware of it and harden their communications against it. If you're unsophisticated enough to be susceptible to this you're probably not enough of a threat to warrant its use.

Re:Faradays cage (1)

fifedrum (611338) | about 2 years ago | (#41752265)

isn't this the equivalent of an EMP? just using shorter wavelengths? So it's going to cook anything that has a micro circuit in it, even if it's off.

Re:Faradays cage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751803)

Nope, a Faraday cage is not 100% effective against microwaves and the computers usually connect to the world outside of their chassie (the most common faraday cage seen on computers) and these connections will happily work as antannea and pick up alkinds of crap and transmitt it into the cage.

Re:Faradays cage (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41752033)

>Nope, a Faraday cage is not 100% effective against microwaves

Microwave oven manufacturers would disagree with you. It's not magic.

--
BMO

Re:Faradays cage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752181)

Serious question, not rhetorical:

If no microwaves are getting through, why do my bluetooth headphones fuck up every time I cook a baked potato?

I keep thinking something is wrong with them, and then I remember that I just started the microwave. This happens both at work and at home.

Re:Faradays cage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752075)

Maybe this will encourge more use of fiber optic connections.

Re:Faradays cage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752185)

which is why I use fiber in for the home network. Really wasn't anymore expensive then GigE and I don't have all the spurious signals and crap coming down the line

Re:Faradays cage (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41752285)

Says someone that knows nothing about RF or how a faraday cage works....

It will be highly effective at preventing this. and if you use a pair of ethernet to fiber transceivers to make a copper air gap, you can have connectivity inside that cage that will not drag the energy in.

and getting power filters to filter incoming power is trivial as well. Stopping spikes coming in on electrical power lines is actually really easy.

Yea!... I mean No. (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41751679)

On the one hand I love reading about science stories. On the other, I am frankly tired of spending billions of dollars to prove the US has the biggest penis. Please cut our military spending 50 percent, focus on diplomacy and better targeted aid. Fund alternative energy to reduce our reliance on dictatorships.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751741)

> On the other, I am frankly tired of spending billions of dollars to prove the US has the biggest penis.

Actually, it has the world's 50th biggest penis...
http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/the-u-s-ranks-50th-in-erection-length/

On the other hand, Ecuador doesn't have a whizzy missile that can switch computers off at a distance. I am sure the women of Ecuador are mortified, quite mortified..

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (2)

fifedrum (611338) | about 2 years ago | (#41752289)

so all I have to do is move to Ecuador?1?!?

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41751775)

I think this is a pretty good use of our military budget. It knocks out enemy electronics without collateral damage. If it hits the wrong target, no civilian casualties. Granted, it's not too difficult to shield against, but that costs a fair bit of money and not everyplace can easily be shielded. If you can take out enemy electronics, you can effectively kill their communications and even a good portion of their mobility... which are probably the two most important elements in any conflict.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751855)

Yeah, and you've also thrown the local civilization back to the stone age. Way to go Team America...

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (3, Funny)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#41751881)

If it hits the wrong target, no civilian casualties.

You killed my World of Warcraft! You bastards!

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751903)

Shoot one at a satellite

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751925)

But, unfortunately, almost all militry equipement has some form of shielding (especially communication equipment). So, yes, this would be good against civilian targets but I doubt it would have much of an effect (other than being a nuisance for some systems that are susceptible) against a military unit. Basically, we are looking at a weapon designed to work against civilian targets... similar to the puke gun (the sound gun that makes people puke), tear gas, etc.

We seem to be making more and more weapons that are designed to work against unarmed or weakly armed people (civilians) versus military units, this has me worried, but for some reason, most people don't seem to either understand the difference or realize this :(

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752059)

But, unfortunately, almost all militry equipement has some form of shielding (especially communication equipment)...

Yeah right.

The move to shift towards using more COTS equipment was being pushed long ago. Don't be surprised to walk into a military field operation and find the exact same Cisco router sitting there as you have in your data center. It's not green in color nor does it have 100 pounds of shielding on it (hence the Off The Shelf designation).

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752153)

But, unfortunately, almost all militry equipement has some form of shielding (especially communication equipment). So, yes, this would be good against civilian targets but I doubt it would have much of an effect (other than being a nuisance for some systems that are susceptible) against a military unit. Basically, we are looking at a weapon designed to work against civilian targets... similar to the puke gun (the sound gun that makes people puke), tear gas, etc.

We seem to be making more and more weapons that are designed to work against unarmed or weakly armed people (civilians) versus military units, this has me worried, but for some reason, most people don't seem to either understand the difference or realize this :(

But it's nonlethal! /sarcasm
Basically, no one wants to believe that the govt would want to create a massive defenseless serf class in less than a month's time. I have a hard time believing it because doing it would reduce our ability to defend against outside threats.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41752017)

No casualties...

Except everyone with a pacemaker.

And everyone hooked up on life support.

And most of the people flying through the area.

And most of the people driving at high speed through the area.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752149)

And all blackberry users....

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41752325)

Except everyone with a pacemaker.

I dunno what frequency they are using exactly, but microwave radiation doesn't penetrate very deep into human skin, so it might not do any damage at all. And it's focused, so they can avoid planes and hospitals. And cars don't automatically crash if the electronics fail, thats the reason EMP is used against fleeing vehicles.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41752029)

Granted, it's not too difficult to shield against, but that costs a fair bit of money and not everyplace can easily be shielded.

So ... it works in goat-herder countries but not anywhere else.

Uhuh. That sounds like it was worth the money. Those goat herders usually operate out of rooms full of computers and other sophisticated electronics...

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752077)

Have there been people in the test building? No? Why not?

BTW, even if it only knocks out electronics, it still will suck for people with pacemakers or other medical devices. "Without collateral damage" is clearly wrong.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752365)

It knocks out enemy electronics without collateral damage. If it hits the wrong target, no civilian casualties.

It's all fun and games until someone takes down the pr0n servers.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751849)

Believe it or not, the billions of dollars spent on this pissing contest does make its way down to us. One of the most relevant examples is the microchip which came was developed for the ICBM program during the cold war.

That's just one specific example, look about and you can find hundreds of other things in daily use which came about thanks to military R&D and our need to blow things up better than the next guy, or prevent things from being blown up.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41751927)

That's just one specific example, look about and you can find hundreds of other things in daily use which came about thanks to military R&D and our need to blow things up better than the next guy, or prevent things from being blown up.

The logical fallicy with the above is this: can you demonstrate that we couldn't have spent the money more effectively and still receive the same consumer benefit? The argument you are giving is that somehow focusing on a military project is going to efficiently translate into a consumer benefit. If I am focused on project "X", it might have a benefit for application "Y", but would not have the same bang for the buck as if I just focused on application "Y" in the first place. You might find instances where this is not the case, but over several projects the trend will hold true.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41752009)

Except you don't really know Application Y at the beginning. It's usually developed afterword when people are sitting around going: We have this great technology, what else can we do with it.
It's a focused RnD. Often int Project X produces application A,B,C and D.

The military doesn't build these things. Companies do. So it's not like the money is put into a pile and lit on fire. It circulates; which is key to a health economy.

It's how spin offs happens.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 2 years ago | (#41752145)

Not so much "could we", but "would we". Defense is a great motivator. It also motivates in a certain direction, and to an extent, a desperate abandon, we wouldn't see elsewhere. The desperate abandon is the interesting point - gets us to try things we wouldn't have considered before.

I doubt anyone can say which is better, just that the different methods are... different.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752147)

It's jobs, and fucking high end ones at that. Every dollar is paying for someone's work somewhere. An engineer, a technician, the guy driving the truck that delivers the components for a prototype build, the cashier at the store where all those other people shop, and so on. So we're paying for jobs anyway, why not get X and Y, especially if, right now, the need for Y may not be obvious? Who knew during the ICBM development that the microchip would be so revolutionary? You can't look at this stuff fairly with your comfy foreknowledge and hindsight.

It's why progressives crying "Gummint musts to make teh jobs!" and right before or after "Slash teh militaries!" are such fucking idiots.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752189)

The difference is motivation.

Private companies have no motive to fund massive R&D efforts that yield sub-fractional returns after long periods of effort. It takes public sector projects to get that done.

Taxpayers don't want to fund massive R&D efforts. At all. Unless it means they get to kill foriegners.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751997)

If you don't prove you have a bigger penis, all the other countries will smack you in the face with theirs.

Re:Yea!... I mean No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752083)

But then our military wouldn't be as powerful as the next 10 countries combined! How could we afford enough horses and bayonets?

Industrial terrorism (4, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | about 2 years ago | (#41751685)

Welcome to the age of industrial terrorism.

Re:Industrial terrorism (3, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#41751797)

Only if "terrorism" means "anything and everything Progrman3K disapproves of."

Re:Industrial terrorism (1)

Progman3K (515744) | about 2 years ago | (#41752141)

You're absolutely right.
This new technology will never be misused or fall into the wrong hands, unlike every technology that came before it.

Re:Industrial terrorism (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#41752257)

Stone Age People aren't a threat, you're right. Lets go back to living naked in huts and caves! WOOT

Re:Industrial terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752035)

Wait until our over militarized police start whining that their safety requires these things. Then they'll shoot every house they go to for one of their no knock raids. Wrong house? Found not guilty? Too bad, your expensive electronics got fried and we're not paying for it 'cause we're the cops and even when we're wrong we're right.

Re:Industrial terrorism (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41752263)

More likely the fail mode will be something like they don't like videos uploaded to youtube of them beating up minorities, so every time they arrest someone they blast everyone in the area... Innocent bystander has a pacemaker? Too bad so sad what are you supporting the terrorists because if your not with us you're against us

Where's Your Tin Foil Hats Now? Bitches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751703)

You're gonna need them.

Aluminum Foil (3, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#41751753)

So, the bad guys (junior grade) have to go out and buy aluminum foil to shield their gear.

The bad guys, senior grade, are worried about Tempest and already have shielding. (Note - if a missile can knock your monitor out, and that is a worry to you, you should also assume that a drone can pick up what the monitor is displaying.)

Re:Aluminum Foil (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#41751871)

Tempest proofing is a difficult art. Things like ventalation and getting power into and select signals out make it non-trivial.

A completely tempest proof room in a building is a giveaway that you're doing something important there.

Also, Tempest signals are extremely low power. This is extremely high power. Look what happens to a ball of aluminum foil you put in a microwave oven. Imagine that's your shielding...

Re:Aluminum Foil (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41752341)

what idiot uses crinkled shielding?

Cut a perfect disc of aluminum foil and press it flat. put it in the microwave... nothing happens.

When you know how RF works you dont make mistakes like you did and assume.

What about the Liveware? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751761)

I don't suppose they are particularly concerned about the effects of the high-powered microwave radiation on the animated bags of water that are likely to be at the computers.

Re:What about the Liveware? (3, Informative)

cmiller173 (641510) | about 2 years ago | (#41752069)

Microwaves are non-ionizing, so cancer 20 years later is unlikely.

Re:What about the Liveware? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41752273)

Just because they are non-ionizing doesn't mean that water will stop absorbing them. It's the localized heating from that that would be the problem.

You don't need standing waves to do this, that's just used because it makes microwave ovens that much more efficient.

What kind of exposure are we talking about here? Apologies if the linked article contains this information.

Re:What about the Liveware? (1)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#41752277)

But cooking the blood is immediate.

And the missile? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751767)

So what happened to the missile? Did it land in the yard in front of the building to be taken apart and sold on the black market?

Re:And the missile? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41752213)

Self-destructed over the desert.

Re:And the missile? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41752281)

It was a test, fool. The whole thing was a controlled environment.

Comprehension Fail... (1)

djsmiley (752149) | about 2 years ago | (#41751787)

"Even the television cameras set up to record the test were knocked off line without collateral damage."

That _IS_ collateral damage.

Re:Comprehension Fail... (1)

phil_aychio (2438214) | about 2 years ago | (#41751959)

Any collateral damage is offset by the collateral benefit of heating up the cup of coffee sitting next to the computer

Re:Comprehension Fail... (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41751979)

Unless the cameras were damaged, then no, there isn't collateral damage. Being knocked offline isn't "damage".

Re:Comprehension Fail... (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41752049)

No it isn't. Within the parameters of the test, they where expected to shut down. In this case, Collateral damage means they wouldn't be functional again. They functioned fine afterwards.

cockroaches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751817)

still alive.

Faraday buildings and heavily shielded cabing (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41751819)

I hope that will suffice as protection from this. Surely the drones are protected from it in some way. If not, them I see no problem of placing such a weapon on the roof of every building, shooting skyward.

Re:Faraday buildings and heavily shielded cabing (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41752331)

No need to shield the cables against this. Microwaves won't cause resonance in circuit larger than the micro- scale (hence the name microwaves - the wavelengths are teensy). It's the microwaves getting into the IC's and interconnects that would be the problem, so you only need to shield the computer itself. Much less expensive that way, and you can leave the (cheap) peripherals unprotected and just swap them out from a (presumably shielded) storage closet.

"Even the television cameras..." (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41751821)

is this one of those headslappers: attempting using electronics to monitor the EMP destruction of electronics?

you can't shield them: assuming it is a garden variety CCD camera, how are you supposed to record electromagnetic radiation when you are shielding against electromagnetic radiation? (optical filters and/or faraday cage?)

benefit of the doubt: they used good old fashioned film cameras. perhaps this is why they are surprised that the EMP killed those too, perhaps because the film cameras were still dependent on something electromechanical that was also serendipitously killed

Its long known you can do this using microwaves... (3, Interesting)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 2 years ago | (#41751825)

...with antennas to remotely disable machines. I've known people make them. However the issue was that 2.4GHz* would cause people to go blind if you hit them with it (due to the clear liquid in your eyes turning milky). As such I don't think this will ever be used in anything other than a war setting, and even then, if you're going to cook the occupants to death, you might as well hit them with a conventional explosive, probably a nicer way to go.

TFA doesn't mention which microwaves they use, perhaps they other other ones which do not affect humans so much.

Re:Its long known you can do this using microwaves (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | about 2 years ago | (#41752151)

...with antennas to remotely disable machines. I've known people make them. However the issue was that 2.4GHz* would cause people to go blind if you hit them with it (due to the clear liquid in your eyes turning milky). As such I don't think this will ever be used in anything other than a war setting, and even then, if you're going to cook the occupants to death, you might as well hit them with a conventional explosive, probably a nicer way to go.

TFA doesn't mention which microwaves they use, perhaps they other other ones which do not affect humans so much.

The burden placed on the enemy of caring for the suddenly disabled is considered part of warfare and is in fact more damaging to the enemy than simply killing them. War is ugly.

Attack cats (5, Funny)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#41751827)

So what they've basically done is created a missile that does the same thing as my cat -- disables computer systems. Though since my cat is not available for deployment in a combat zone, I think the missile is the way to go.

Re:Attack cats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752031)

When your cat goes on a "wild cat" tear, your house IS the "combat zone." Whether you realize that the cat is "deploying" its teeth and claws, or not!

Progress (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 2 years ago | (#41751829)

New-and-improved ways to destroy stuff!

Now, hopefully, history will proceed as it usually does, and other countries won't in response take the unprecedented step of developing their own improved ways to destroy our stuff.

Live by the sword... well, you know the rest.

No collateral damage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751847)

It's a bit like saying taking down a building has no collateral damage if it doesn't cause other buildings to collapse.

Re:No collateral damage? (3)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41752001)

It's a bit like saying taking down a building has no collateral damage if it doesn't cause other buildings to collapse.

That is exactly what it means. If it takes down the intended building, then the intended building is not collateral damage.

But everything IN that building is crushed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752261)

Therefore you could also say that with an explosive bomb (or nuke) that as long as you define "required action" as "everything in the blast radius", that too becomes "no collateral damage".

my question is (2)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about 2 years ago | (#41751897)

Can this thing be used to take out the "Dancing With the Stars" and "American Idol" studios? Oh, please God.

Re:my question is (2)

cmiller173 (641510) | about 2 years ago | (#41752223)

Seriously? Of all the Crap reality TV on, these are the ones you chose to make your point? Those two are way down the priority list from, for example #27 Real Housewives, #13 swamp people, and of course #1 Jersey Shore. But don't worry, mission planning proceeds apace.

I just want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751933)

Can I borrow this to disable my neighbor's tv and stereo?

Designed to work (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41751941)

The whole test was most likley setup to allow a maximum chance the missle would suceed. Reminds me of other tests of Star Wars tech that were rigged to explode. Circuit breakers loaded to near tripping point, etc.

Us & them (1)

CyclistOne (896544) | about 2 years ago | (#41751987)

Yeah, we do this to "them" but they'll never do the same thing to us.

What about the popcorn in the lounge kitchen? (1)

Provocateur (133110) | about 2 years ago | (#41751995)

I believe this would qualify as 'collateral damage', if they ended up burned instead of warmed and ready.

Fantastic !!! (1)

yvesdandoy (44789) | about 2 years ago | (#41751999)

Another Great Invention that's going to make our lives A LOT better !!!

Sweet !!!

We REALLY needed that !!!!!

I really wonder how we could have lived without that being available up to now !!!

Do I have to mention that this is pure sarcasm or not ?

Argh! (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 2 years ago | (#41752027)

On Oct. 16th at 10:32 a.m. MST

Mountain Daylight Time!

Hear that? (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41752039)

That faint buzzing? That's the sound of Freedom (being utterly destroyed by the Military-Fatherland-Industrial Complex)!

Ejection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752053)

No one noticed the disc flying out of the optical drive around 0:42?

Why a missile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752055)

Wouldn't a plane (or drone) do this job better?

works like a champ (1)

trybywrench (584843) | about 2 years ago | (#41752067)

It's interesting that it can disable multiple targets, I wonder what the power requirements are. I figured the missile would detonate near the target and use the energy of the explosion to somehow how generate targeted microwaves like a shaped charge energy weapon more or less. It's on a missile because missiles are fast but I bet we see the same setup installed on drones in the near future.

This weapon will do 2 things....... (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about 2 years ago | (#41752099)

1. Knock out old CRT monitors and custom built PC's.

2. Creates a new PC industry designed to be withstand microwave blasts.

And now they will ask for a defense budget for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752123)

Now everything the government owns will have to be protected from microwave attacks. Round and round it goes...

If the cameras were knocked out (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 2 years ago | (#41752139)

how do they know what happened to the other electronics- the TARGET?

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752235)

"Microsoft uses software to slow down PCs"

MASER! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752241)

Glad to see the military finally looking at Maser as a weapon.

Why shoot a hole in some one when you can just cook them to death.

The latest weapon in copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752245)

Three strikes then we remove your ability to use the Internet.... With force!

Regards,
RIAA.

Why use a missile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752253)

If you want to disable the electronics without collateral damage, why use a missile? Why not use an innocent-looking white van?

I dont buy it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41752283)

Getting EMP-style weapons to fire continually at different targets will take to much power.
One missile delivering an EMP warhead on the other hand is possible.

Maybe they are cheating and targeting the auto shutdown safety procedure in a modern computer PSU.
Or go bigger and target the power transformer safety procedures.

Government fighting its worse enemy: (1)

Shark (78448) | about 2 years ago | (#41752293)

The Internet.

Article short on detail .... (1)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | about 2 years ago | (#41752323)

Does anyone know exactly what is fried in the monitors and in the PC's? I would have thought that the metal cases found on most PC's would have provided some amount of protection.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>