Did you hear that the U.S. military is developing flying dragons that shoot laser beams from their eyes? They don’t say that directly, but you can see the parts coming together.
A drone is about halfway to being a flying dragon already. And recently the military tested a laser weapon that destroyed a truck at a distance. It is only a matter of time before the military miniaturizes laser weapons and puts them on drones.
I think the first generation of laser drones will look boring, like today. But eventually someone will say, “Let’s make the drones look like flying dragons that shoot laser beams out of their eyes!” Someone else will point out that a flying dragon will not be as aerodynamic as a normal drone. But that is a small price to pay for the coolness of it all. Just think of the bragging rights.
North Korea: “We have developed long range missiles with nuclear warheads. Death to the Americans!”
U.S.: “We have ten-thousand flying dragons that feel no pain and shoot lasers from their eyes. They are permanently circling your country looking for anything that leaves the ground. On the plus side, just point to your hibachi and we’ll light it for you from the sky. Oh, and our satellites are seeing an irregular mole on your back. You should see someone about that.”
In the long run, I expect we will develop a robot army, including drones, to create a virtual fence around ISIS-held territory. The robots would kill anything with a heat signature that came within a mile of the border. And the drones might be able to jam all communications in the area too. I would be amazed if the military is not working toward that containment strategy. The dragon part is a bit less likely.
But as someone said in the comments, waiting for ISIS to self-destruct is a good option too. As the movement succeeds, it attracts people who have slightly different views until the whole thing becomes like the American Congress that can’t get anything done. Good luck with that, ISIS.
My post today was boring, but luckily my blogging partners did better.
Vivian Giang explains why men are better than women when it comes to the workplace. (Expect a twist.) I buy every part of her post, as it is based on studies and the obvious. But in an upcoming post I plan to have a link war to figure out how everything Vivian describes can be true at the same time other studies show no pay differential after you adjust for experience. I believe both assertions even though they are in direct conflict. What is up with that?
In other news, a company created a frickin’ car with 3D printers. What????
And a Berkeley-related start-up has an app that could alleviate a lot of poverty. How do you ignore that?