"will transform the battlespace and save lives by giving warfighters a speed-of-light, ultra-precision engagement capability that will dramatically reduce collateral damage"
It's language like that that I really can't stand. So, you're making a new high energy weapon and you claim that it will save lives ? That depends on the side of the weapon that you are on I guess.
Collateral damage as it is so nicely called is one of the weirdest terms.
Why are we so scared to name it with a more descriptive term, such as innocent civilians, or even better children, women and men that happened to be in the wrong place.
This weapon 'minimizes' such damage, or so they claim but all I see is another way of killing people. If the idea is that it minimizes them as compared to other weaponry then how about a suggestion to not use that stuff at all if it can be avoided, instead of funding ever more ways to murder people ?
The quality of a weapon is as good as the intelligence that guides it, not the precision of the weapon itself, that is only a very small factor.
