Thanks for the link Ace.

Trolling around his site, I. . . I don't know what to say.

His articles on the Pentagon cuts are so completely wrong-headed, I think I just found a subject for my next posting.

Nifty links, yeah; but his original analysis? To paraphrase one of the greats, "His conclusions are all wrong. . . Halsey acted stupidly."

Thanks,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

In the good old days, bomber and fighter pilots had eyepatches to put on if hostilities broke out between the US and USSR, so if a nuke blast happened in their vision they'd have one eye left. Someone find the box with all the eyepatches and we're straight.

Then again, I agree with Gerard at American Digest: lasers are about targeting, not blinding.

Wouldn't it make more sense to coat the plane's windows in the protective material these contacts have?

In a word, no. Coating the windows sounds pretty smart, until you realize that, at the speeds the airplanes are moving, contact with rain will make that coating vanish faster than a box of Krispy Kreme donuts in front of Micheal "He's THAT fucking fat!" Moore.

Making the material part of the cockpit windows (layered within the glass) is a pretty nifty idea, but I imagine AL contact lenses would be several metric fuckloads cheaper.

Ummm.....wouldn't it be easier to coat the inside?

Wouldn't it be several metric fuckloads cheaper to make the contact lenses? Don't make me repeat myself, you won't like me if I have to repeat myself.

I think we might be past that point....

Crew of three in a commercial airliner, possibly prescription lenses for a year vs. a one-time application of interior window film -- I had someone quote me about $100 for tinting the windows on my wagon, and I don't think a cockpit is any bigger. Plus, no dry-eye problems for expensive pilots pulling 18-hour days.

While I can't speak for any metric fuckloads, it does look like the Imperial fuckloads might favor a laser-proof film on the inside of the cockpit windows.