International Proliferation of Anti ICBM Lasers

[kmarinas86]

Lasers are safer for the following reasons:

Once you point them into sky, it's hard to bring them down. Hence, one could safely distribute the technology to both friends and enemy. Iran can't hit us with a laser (from Iran).

You can have a bunch of lasers and mass produce them for redunancy and lower cost. With rockets to do the same job, that's a pipe dream.

You can distribute lasers all over the west and east coast. Even in Northern Canada and at the US Mexican border (key is mutiplicity of smaller lasers).

Lasers are simply faster than rockets.

Variety of lasers give more options than the cannonball vs. cannonball type of effectiveness that is inherent in "anti-missle missle defense systems".

Lasers have less power than bombs, they don't have the same power as Nuclear Weapons, but it is enough to knock a nuclear missle, especially if you have more than one laser!

No matter how many nuclear missles North Korea has, with an effective laser based missle defense system, this will no longer mean much to America, since the priceless ability to destroy those weapons at a flash would make their efforts at ICBMs pointless. If others adopt the system, others too would render our ICBMs useless. It would render many nuclear weapons obsolete. It would be like they didn't even exist!

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, think of India and Pakistan when the glorious day of nuclear weapons being rendered useless comes...

And i have a feeling you fail the grasp the engineering problems building laser-based anti-ballistic missile platforms presents...

 

[kmarinas86]

Yes, think of India and Pakistan when the glorious day of nuclear weapons being rendered useless comes...

And i have a feeling you fail the grasp the engineering problems building laser-based anti-ballistic missile platforms presents...

I wish I knew why.

I know a few concepts about what's required.

Power isn't all you need, what's important as well is the energy you send up via laser. This works better if it is sent at a frequency it is absorbed by the rocket, so it may help to know what kind of coatings the rocket has to see what kind of frequencies are better for destroying it.

I don't know if I can talk about it like this but here it goes:
If you want to send up 1 megajoule of energy via laser in 1 second, you have many choices. You could have a single 1-megawatt laser system, having in store 1 megajoule of energy, or you could have 1000 1-kilowatt laser systems, each having in store 1000 joules of energy (239 calories).

Does anyone have the knowledge as to which method of the two (as presented here) would be better in most cases?

 

[Pengwuino]

Focusing 1000 small lasers onto a single point 2000km away would be challenge (and another problem is focusing a laser with such accuracy that atmospheric conditions don't create too much of a problem). Its best to use 1 large laser. You might want to look (watch me pull an astronuc!) at Boeing's Airborne Laser System:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/

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

I think this thing is capable of taking down 16 missiles until its chemicals would need to be refueled. From what I remember, i believe it was planned for emergency deployment into the gulf last year but i doubt they deployed it.

You must also take into account that for example, the US NMD has a tremendous system of tracking and guidance associated with it to track incoming missiles. You can't just plop down a battery out in New YorK harbor and expect it to do the whole job.

 

[slugcountry]

Here's a reason why this is a horrible idea:

If you put in the time to develop pin-point precision laser weapons, all you need to do is place them on orbital platforms, and you have pin point precision strikes from space.

What a great world that would be.

I'm sure the military is way ahead of the game on this already.

 

[Pengwuino]

Putting a satellite into orbit to use a laser as a weapon is rediculous. You would need a huge laser to do much damage. I mean you need an entire 747 for 1 laser with enough ammo to take down a couple down missiles... and those aren't even really "attack" lasers. They just do enough damage to disable something. The day a multi-billion dollar 20 shot megawatt laser becomes a better option then a million dollar cruise missile...

 

[slugcountry]

lol its not as out of the question as you might think

missiles only travel so fast... if i had an enormous budget that meant the means to dispatch anyone anywhere in the world within the minute theyre spotted... all it would take is a nuclear reactor.. they can fit one into a submarine you know.

(orbiting mirrors would work too..)

 

[Pengwuino]

Yaaaaaaah i don't know where to begin on how insane that idea was. Have you thought this all through? Are you familiar with the needs of high energy lasers? Are you familiar with satellite mechanics? Nuclear reactors?

 

[slugcountry]

Thanks for the random patronizing, I'm very well aware of the current limitations in the tech.. which is why I'm opposed to improving it... especially the imaging systems.

By the way YOU might want to familiarize yourself with concepts such as the x-ray laser, which would be minimally distorted by thick atmoshpere. Please remember this technology is in the formative stages, however improving rapidly. In fact the first test involving deflecting lasers off orbital mirrors was scheduled for this year last time I checked.

100 years ago, people like you were convinced man would never fly.

 

[Pengwuino]

So is that a no?

Patronization... reality check... its all good.

 

[slugcountry]

A brilliant and well reasoned reply, take care.

 

[Pengwuino]

100 years ago, people like you were convinced man would never fly.

What is that, -10 points?

 

[wasteofo2]

Didn't Tesla have this idea about 60 years ago?

 

[Pengwuino]

He wasnt alive 60 years ago

 

[FrogPad]

Thanks for the random patronizing, I'm very well aware of the current limitations in the tech.. which is why I'm opposed to improving it... especially the imaging systems.

By the way YOU might want to familiarize yourself with concepts such as the x-ray laser, which would be minimally distorted by thick atmoshpere. Please remember this technology is in the formative stages, however improving rapidly. In fact the first test involving deflecting lasers off orbital mirrors was scheduled for this year last time I checked.

100 years ago, people like you were convinced man would never fly.

There is a difference between reasonable thoughts, and something totally ludicrous.

That's like the difference between someone thinking,
1) I want to build a teleporter.
2) I want to build a machine to travel a human from A to B as fast as possible.

One is reasonable, the other is not. Go ahead and argue that one day we will be able to teleport people, that's not my point.

My point is, that it's important to solve the problem at hand, not to pose an entirely new problem to combat with the original issue that needs to be solved.

Is your problem to be solved,

1) A method should be created to accurately shoot missles down.

or

2) Lasers should be put in space with the abilitiy to accurately shoot missles down.

 

[Rach3]

You can have a bunch of lasers and mass produce them for redunancy and lower cost. With rockets to do the same job, that's a pipe dream.

Can you provide any meaningful support for these claims?

 

[Rach3]

Useful link: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm

Neither cheap nor operational. There are severe optical issues even at 40,000 feet; presumably these would be insurmountable to a ground-based laser, what with this darned atmosphere in the way. It seems that's why they need air- or space-based lasers in the first place.

 

[kmarinas86]

Useful link: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm

Neither cheap nor operational. There are severe optical issues even at 40,000 feet; presumably these would be insurmountable to a ground-based laser, what with this darned atmosphere in the way. It seems that's why they need air- or space-based lasers in the first place.

Ok. My idea doesn't work. Cased closed.

 

[deckart]

Well, I wouldn't throw it out completely. Why would we need to fire the laser to 40,000 ft? How about 10,000 ft or even less? We just need to disable it. The missile debri may still make a hole in the ground but it won't be a nuclear explosion.

 

[Rach3]

APS Study Points to Severe Limits on Boost-Phase Missile Defense

A two-year study challenges many of the assumptions behind the Bush administration's $600 million boost-phase program.

The airborne laser now under development might have some capability against slower liquid-fueled ICBMs, but "it would be ineffective against solid-propellant ICBMs, which are more heat-resistant."

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-9/p26.html

The ABL doesn't burn through a missile, or disintegrate it. Rather it heats the missile skin, weakening it and causing failure due to flight stresses. If proven successful, a fleet of seven Boeing 747s with the ABL system would be constructed. In operation they would be divided between two combat theaters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

 

[Rach3]

Conclusions of the UCS:

The planned NMD system could be defeated by technically simple countermeasures. Such countermeasures would be available to any emerging missile state that deploys a long-range ballistic missile.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/countermeasures.html

It seems many of the anti-ABM countermeasures they discuss are also very relevant to ABL's. Simple things like decoys.

 

[Rach3]

Keep in mind that this ABL is only possible in the boost phase of an ICBM launch, according to Boeing:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/

This means any system must be fairly close to the launch site to begin with (several hundred kilometers).

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, I wouldn't throw it out completely. Why would we need to fire the laser to 40,000 ft? How about 10,000 ft or even less? We just need to disable it. The missile debri may still make a hole in the ground but it won't be a nuclear explosion.

Missiles tend to go rather far up and you'd want a system capable of taking out missiles at any point in their flight path. Just look at Minuteman III missiles,

Ceiling: 700 miles (1,120 kilometers)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/lgm-30_3-specs.htm

 

[FrogPad]

I was watching the news during the whole N. Korea missle tests. It was a debate between 5-6 people about the issues. One congressman (I believe) brought up how important it was that the missle defense program was funded, and how much safer American's are because of it. That's when I turned it off.

 

[Pengwuino]

I was watching the news during the whole N. Korea missle tests. It was a debate between 5-6 people about the issues. One congressman (I believe) brought up how important it was that the missle defense program was funded, and how much safer American's are because of it. That's when I turned it off.

For a program designed to investigate ways to destroy weapons that currently want to be banned by a majority of the world... i would think that that falls under the idea of 'safer'. Would you prefer someone nuke you? Is that safe?

 

[Rach3]

For a program designed to investigate ways to destroy weapons that currently want to be banned by a majority of the world... i would think that that falls under the idea of 'safer'. Would you prefer someone nuke you? Is that safe?

I think we should all carry parasols around. Or would you rather have a flying pig fall on your unprotected head? Is that safer?

The analogy is quite good. (i) ICBM attack is not a reasonable threat in the near future. (ii) ABM's simply http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-9/p26.html anyway. This is just political mongering, throwing tens of billions of military spending into a failed project.

 

[FrogPad]

For a program designed to investigate ways to destroy weapons that currently want to be banned by a majority of the world... i would think that that falls under the idea of 'safer'. Would you prefer someone nuke you? Is that safe?

I don't know if you are kidding around... but I'll assume there is some seriousness to it.

The political figures point had nothing to do with research. Yes, he protected his ass by using a vague vocabulary. One can argue that we are safer because of a http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0723-05.htm" success rate in "lab" conditions. The way he expressed himself was that, Americans have a missile defense system that will keep them safe. And most people take that like there is some type of artificial shield that protects the United States. It just isn't true. The technology is nowhere near that accurate.

I really hate when politicians, or news agencies put spins on topics like this.

 

[slugcountry]

Are ICBM's vulnerable to emp?

 

[deckart]

Are ICBM's vulnerable to emp?

good question. What's the range of an EMP and is it directional?

 

[Pengwuino]

The analogy is quite good. (i) ICBM attack is not a reasonable threat in the near future. (ii) ABM's simply http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-9/p26.html anyway. This is just political mongering, throwing tens of billions of military spending into a failed project.

That's rather interesting. All that article was was a series of "This document is perfect, its the greatest ever, anyone who thinks different is laughable" statements. It's also many years old. And if you take into account all the exagerations of that article, http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/nmd_test_011204.html"

And since this system is a work in progress... only very foolish people would demand something be tossed out while still under development. Then again we probably should have scrapped the Apollo program since we didn't land on the moon on the very first space launch

 

[Pengwuino]

Are ICBM's vulnerable to emp?

Not anymore i think. Both sides during the Cold War had the idea to detonate nuclear weapons in the atmosphere hoping the EMP would disrupt the enemies missiles. Since it's fairly easy to shield things against EMP, I'm sure both sides have hardened their missiles for EMP attacks.

Also, the idea of tossing up and detonating multiple nuclear weapons into the atmosphere as a deterent was found to be rather impractical.