ground based laser defense system works

[BouncyCaitian]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...0607-thel1.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/thel.htm

[Phantom]

I'm sorry, but I have ZERO faith in these kind of systems, to work the laser system would have to be hugh and therefore VERY expensive, to the point of being impractical...but since when has a President worried about that.

Also, even with a 1% failure rate that is still allowing alot of warheads through, especially if the missiles are nukes. Sure, it is a smaller number, but you only need one nuke.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Originally posted by Phantom
I'm sorry, but I have ZERO faith in these kind of systems, to work the laser system would have to be hugh and therefore VERY expensive, to the point of being impractical...but since when has a President worried about that.

Also, even with a 1% failure rate that is still allowing alot of warheads through, especially if the missiles are nukes. Sure, it is a smaller number, but you only need one nuke.

I'd rather have a 99% shield than nothing at all. Better to build some means of defense rather than rely on nothing.

Possible deployment date is 2007. Cost is set to about 250 million dollars from 1996-2002. I can't imagine the deployment cost. The Crusader was cancelled in May 2002 by the Department of Defense. They also cancelled the Commanche RAH-66 after years of development. I wouldn't be surprised if this Laser Tech would go the same way after an attempt at development.

You can check some other systems at

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/index.html

Its fairly interesting. The information is also pretty accurate.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
I'd rather have a 99% shield than nothing at all. Better to build some means of defense rather than rely on nothing.

Defense from who? Last I heard the era of the ICBM was over. We have more to fear from a terrorist bringing a nuke (or your choice of doomsday device) into North America in a suitcase, then we ever will from a missile.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Originally posted by Phantom
Defense from who? Last I heard the era of the ICBM was over. We have more to fear from a terrorist bringing a nuke (or your choice of doomsday device) into North America in a suitcase, then we ever will from a missile.

I won't talk about the political aspect of this issue (feel free to pm me to discuss it), since we are prohibited.

The main purpose is to remain one step ahead of every one else in case of any future problem. It is best to be prepared decades in advance in case of future problems. The issue of a missile defense shield is primarily a political issue.

Alot of modern weapon systems have ceased to have any serious use. Modern armor has had its role primarily removed by mechanized infantry. Aircraft with pilots are also going on the way out. UAV's are far more interesting tools of warfare, and an added plus is the relative cost versus that of an aircraft which must carry a human aboard. There is no army on this Earth that is seriously able to compete on the battlefield with our neighbor down South. One of the many reasons, is that the U.S.A. keeps itself one step ahead of everyone else in terms of technology and overall military strategy.

[Phantom]

Don't get me wrong for a small country like Isreal this would be a good and prudent defense. They are a country actually under threat from short range rocket attack, and it would only require a few "gun turrets" to protect them. A country like the USA and Canada (since Canadian territory would be used to close the Northern end of the Grid) would be far too costly, you are looking at what? A perimeter of about 10 000 miles (for just one ring of defenses?) How many "laser turrets" would be needed? Doesn't seem too cost effective to me.

"I'd rather have a 99% shield than nothing at all."

:shrug: Hope you don't live near a major urban center.


"The main purpose is to remain one step ahead of every one else in case of any future problem."

How is this accomplished by building an obscene number of glorified search lights?

Wouldn't that 250 Million been better spent beefing up security at our ports and airports, hiring more customs agents and Coast Guardsmen and putting sensing devices along the Can./US border?

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Phantom
"I'd rather have a 99% shield than nothing at all."

:shrug: Hope you don't live near a major urban center.

I'd rather be near a major urban center under Antos' deployment schedule than under yours, Phantom... Anyhoo, a more sensible plan would be forward depoyment so they can lase the missiles in their boost phase. Deployed, say, to Okinawa and combined with the ABMs in Alaska, and the Aegeis ABM on Navy ships this could well stop everything North Korea could throw at us, or greatly reduce the effects of a Chinese first strike. No, it wouldn't save everyone in an attack scenario, but the ones who were saved would be damn glad of it. Your way strikes me as passing on health insurance to pay for a gym membership.

[Phantom]

A Chinese first strike!? Oh, for...someone has been reading too much Harold Coyle or Tom Clancey.

Can someone give me a REAL scenario where these things would be of any use...other then as 4th of July light shows?

"I'd rather be near a major urban center under Antos' deployment schedule than under yours, Phantom."

Sure whatever, one gets through, 10 gets through...you are just as finished either way. Besides, if there is this great exchange of nukes that Bush and his supporters "think" will happen, do you really want to be around "The Day After?" I'm not sure I would.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Originally posted by Phantom
A Chinese first strike!? Oh, for...someone has been reading too much Harold Coyle or Tom Clancey.

Can someone give me a REAL scenario where these things would be of any use...other then as 4th of July light shows?

"I'd rather be near a major urban center under Antos' deployment schedule than under yours, Phantom."

Sure whatever, one gets through, 10 gets through...you are just as finished either way. Besides, if there is this great exchange of nukes that Bush and his supporters "think" will happen, do you really want to be around "The Day After?" I'm not sure I would.

There is a big difference between 10 and 1 getting through. In major urban centers, it can mean the difference between casualties in the 100,000's of thousands instead of in the millions. Excluding the irradiation of metals in the centers, repeated strikes upon cities is a staple of a nuclear strategy.

I "live" in Montreal. I work in Ottawa in a government building that is far outside the city limits. I'm not personnally worried about being killed in the advent of a nuclear exchange.

But let's look at scenarios. Can you really tell me exactly what will happen in the next 40-50 years? Can you guarantee the safety of the U.S. citizen at home from foreign attack? It wasn't obvious at the end of WW2 that Stalin had extreme territorial ambitions. It wasn't clear how far the Soviet Union and China would go in Korea (likewise for the U.S.). It wasn't clear whether the U.S.A. would resort to the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam if the Soviet Union or China had provided OVERT aid to the VC. Better to be prepared.

Future threats could include a re-armed and re-centralized non-democratic Russia. Russia swings from states of weakness to extreme power. It has an arsenal, but has not used it to date, keyword: To date. China has mostly been interested in its regional sphere of influence. However, what would occur if India and China crossed into a deep conventional war that would begin with border disputes. China launched a surprise attack on Indian positions in 1962. It had in previous years subjugated Tibet. It has territorial ambitions that include important U.S. allies (and maybe future possibilities). Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Phillipines, Pakistan and maybe someday India are all high value U.S. allies. A regional war that would end with a massive Indian defeat would grant them unqualified dominance over these areas. A scenario that is simply unacceptable.

Another scenario is the NK rogue state proposition. I'm not seriously swayed by it. But it would deter them from even trying in the first place.

Another, also unlikely, another rise of fasco-nationalistic sentiment in Europe. Either the speedy and anarchic break-up of the EU or a extreme strengthening of its political structure. With its economy it stand to pose a serious threat if two conditions are met. The national governments are rendered inept AND there is a serious military build-up by the new EU superpower.

As for "wanting" to be around the next day. Some may not want to. That's not up to them to decide. Some of us have a duty to protect citizens of our countries, through the good and bad. Someone has to seriously sit down and think a strategy through in case of a nuclear exchange. The end result of a Dark Age because people didn't want to deal with this ugly possibility is unacceptable.

I hope this doesn't break the ban. If it does, I'm more than happy to continue this through PM's.

[Phantom]

I can see how this would break the ban, it's two people discussing tactics and strategy, as far as I m concerned.

Can I guarentee the US won't be attacked? No, but having grown up in the latter part of the Cold War and WWWIII "threat" and knowing it would never happen ( at least unconventionally), I can say with some self confidence that if it is it won't be by any means this program will be able to defend against. But don't worry when Abu Whatshisname detonates a WMD in NY or DC I won't say "I told you so." And if in the very slim chance that I am wrong, then while I am learning to glow in the dark after "the Chinese First Strike" I will be the first to say "Ooopppss!"

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Phantom
"I'd rather be near a major urban center under Antos' deployment schedule than under yours, Phantom."

Sure whatever, one gets through, 10 gets through...you are just as finished either way. Besides, if there is this great exchange of nukes that Bush and his supporters "think" will happen, do you really want to be around "The Day After?" I'm not sure I would.

Just as finished if I'm in that one city. You would really consign 9 cities to atomic fire just because you couldn't save the 10th one as well? I suspect the folks in the first nine might disagree with you somewhat. Just a hunch. At any rate, much like ICBMs themselves, this is something you build so you DON'T have to use it. You think Gen. Xiong Guankai would have made his 1995 threat that we "cared more about Los Angeles than Taipei." if we had such a system in place at the time? Such a system could well deter rouge states from further research into ICBMs. (And as for the suitecase nukes, we're already keeping an eye on our ports, and are actively involved in killing those who want to use one on us.)

[Phantom]

To quote Cmdr Spock "military secrets are the most fleeting of all." If the West does take up this new defense (and be assured the rest of the US allies would want the info on this) how long before these Grand Villians, these Arch Fiends of the world get their hands on it and find a way to exploit weaknesses?

Come on guys! Do you really believe that anyone will press the button and launch a inter-continental attack against North America? Wow! And I thought I was marginally paranoid. At least I am paranoid about a realistic scenario.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Originally posted by Phantom
To quote Cmdr Spock "military secrets are the most fleeting of all." If the West does take up this new defense (and be assured the rest of the US allies would want the info on this) how long before these Grand Villians, these Arch Fiends of the world get their hands on it and find a way to exploit weaknesses?

Come on guys! Do you really believe that anyone will press the button and launch a inter-continental attack against North America? Wow! And I thought I was marginally paranoid. At least I am paranoid about a realistic scenario.

What is a realistic scenario? Was the escalation of violence between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan realistic? What about Vietnam and the U.S.? Did anyone believe these would become problematic military engagements? Agencies such as Mossad, CSIS, CIA and the FBI (and many, many more) are charged with assessing and ensuring the safety of citizens from ALL potential sources; especially from friends. Keep your enemies close, but your friends even closer...

Do I believe it will happen? Personnally I doubt it would happen within my lifetime. Then again, my grandfather didn't think Germany would seriously consider attacking Poland in 1939 after it had signed treaties with the U.K. and France. You never, ever know. You must be prepared decades ahead of time. Poland wasn't, it paid the price, much like the gran majority of the smaller states of Europe at the time.

The development of weapon systems is an on-going effort. You create a device, your enemy creates a counter-measure and so it goes. This is an endless loop. It can neither be broken nor stopped. Sharing is an altogether other issue. Simply put, if Canada developped such a system, I believe sharing it with the U.S. would be clearly in our interests and maybe with the British. Everyone else can figure it out on their own.

This laser tech vs ballistic missiles is similar to the Tank vs ammunition penetration. As the armor on Tanks increased so did the power, range and accuracy of artillery and ammunition. This is also true in the reverse. Its a race to see who can build the best weapon system. This Laser defense system would be like an umbrella, with a few holes, but an umbrella nevertheless. Up to now, we haven't had any rain...yet.

But like I said, I don't believe such a system would survive switches from one administration to another in whatever democracy it was being developped. The costs of innovation and deployment are much too high.

[Kaiddin]

No, but having grown up in the latter part of the Cold War and WWWIII "threat"

WWWIII??? World Wide Web 3 or World Web War 3 or World Water War 3?

Such a system could well deter rouge states

Red states as in Communist or just socialist or are we talking general flag colour? Rouge=Red.

Just some levity. The closer it gets to politics, da wurs da speling!

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Kaiddin
WWWIII??? World Wide Web 3 or World Web War 3 or World Water War 3?





Red states as in Communist or just socialist or are we talking general flag colour? Rouge=Red.

Just some levity. The closer it gets to politics, da wurs da speling!

Ah, comedy...the great equalizer.

All valid points LT, however I m sure there were a few Generals that knew what kind of @%&* storm Vietnam was going to be.

If this idea popped up 20 years ago, as it did with Ronnies Star Wars, a program I supported at the time, I would be behind it as well. But, the case now is who is able to launch anything against us? Iraq? It appears they were out of ammo. China? Why would they? They know anything they launch at the USA will be returned by a factor of 3.

What we have to be afraid of now is these WMD coming in on planes and ships and then planted by human agents. Now, if you are telling me these laser turrets will be able to zap a terrorist as he walks off a plane or ship then I say "I want one in my back yard." But, as long as it is just Grand Moff George's (and I'm not talking Lucas here) plan to build a better Death Star then I say "it is a stupendous waste of money, manpower and time."