New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped
give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics
has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now
there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What
will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate
and in the new scientific era?
(537 previous messages)
- 05:51pm Jan 6, 2001 EST (#538
charliezero - 06:20am Jan 6, 2001 EST (#535 of 537)
The Airborne Laser Missile Defense System
Uhh, is this the 10k thing the Israelis just bought? That already
works in prototype? That will be deployed next year? I thought it
was on the ground.
is exciting and has great promise as a major component
of Theater Area Air Defense but would be of little use in a
larger scale conflict owing to the 10km range limitation
Well the Israeli/American one just zaps Katuchka rockets and the
plastic bubble the pilot looks through. (As if the pilot wouldn't
feel some heat too before the plastic turned to foam.) 10km is al
lot in Israel though.
we would need over 1,000 of the things just to catch
cruise missiles coming from offshore, not to mention the
hundreds of thousands for the interior to zap ICBM warheads.
Yes, the great weakness to limited range lasers. Even being able
to zap an ICBM at 100km though swell requires a heck of a lot of
lasers to cover the US. If they don't have range, we will need a lot
That having been said, I am hopeful that more powerful
ground based lasers will be capable of targeting and
vaporizing a warhead in space within 20 years,
With a Manhattan project attitude, I figure 5 years for results,
10 years easy.
and that will be all she wrote for the ICBM
Yep. It's the speed of light. And if a big ground based laser has
the range and power, It could knock down every ICBM in the world.
ICBM's are easy to hit. The B part stands for ballistic. It might
as well stand for sitting duck. Little rockets won't help. They are
coming at us a 30,000km/hr, a little rocket won't change that much.
Chaff won't help. We could probably zap chaff faster and cheaper
than it could be put in orbit.
I mean, even with terrible efficiency, a trivial part of the
energy in the national power consumption would fry vast amounts of
ICBMs. We could run copper cables 12' wide to the laser. Capacitors
the size of a barn. In rows.
Reflective stuff might not give immunity to all wavelengths and
modulations. But our reflective mirrors will be tuned to bounce it
effectively, anywhere on earth. Instantly. With no warning. At the
speed of light, we would be able to zap anything or things on the
face of the earth simultaniously, with no warning whatsoever.
Yeah, that's a fine weapon there, you betcha.
and MAD and good riddance.
Here I disagree. Powerful nations will always be able to destroy
the US without ICBMs.
I just want to see the look on the collective Chinese
face when they realize how much scarce money they wasted
developing their missiles.
I don't know, they haven't really spent that much money on
military stuff. Not that they might not change their mind.
The Russians probably won't mind much, especially if we
I say we spend half the money a new Cold War would cost to make
them happy in a way that benefits everyone. If not, 10 times as many
Russian missles would worry me less than one Saddam one.
One thing is certain, only a fool would think some ABM was
certain to stop the Russian ICBMs.
the French will SCREAM though - he he he!
The heads of the American People were put on the nuclear chopping
block to defend the French, ever since we saved them from the
Germans. They seem to want to keep the American people's heads on
that chopping block with theirs. The reason is obvious.
Then once the missiles have all been dismantled we can
convert most of the ground based lasers to laser-based launch
facilities for cargo aeroshells.
Where are you going to get the momentum? Plenty of energy, but
not much momentum. Use the energy to make something carried along
leave at high speed?
Sure seems like we will need them for a while though. And rail
guns will get stuff in orbit pretty easy too.
We will also have
- 05:51pm Jan 6, 2001 EST (#539
We will also have to maintain and extend our
superiority in conventional weapons for when the nuclear
Well, we want the best fighter airplane and support on earth.
That part's clear.
The side with the best fighter plane wins a modern conventional
I don't mind spending the money, but there's so much politics and
corruption, we generally get taken to the cleaners.
- 10:29am Jan 7, 2001 EST (#540
If there is any valid reason to expect that any of this stuff
works, I'd be glad to know of it - references anyone?
The fact that the Israelis bought a prototype, given US - Israeli
military-aid-intelligence relationships, says NOTHING about how
valid or useful the hardware is. If the purchase by the Israelis
gives "rhetorical cover" for a project, and the US asks, Israel will
do what makes sense for it - which, subject to negotiation, is to go
I would be FOR a missile defense that actually worked. I
see none in prospect. Perhaps I'm behind the times? Well, then what
references might I read? My guess, from what I know about lasars,
and controls, and optics, is that the "child's play" of putting
effective missile defense together with lasars, either ground or
space based, could not stand reasonable crossexamination.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
See the quick-edit
help for more information.