> I am guessing that laser technology is a 'pushable' science. In other words, depending on how much we
> spend, and how many technicians we apply to the technology, we can achieve a decent defense against missles.
You can take out few 10 missiles at an astronomic cost. The cost is so high, it doesn't
There are much better uses for that money, imo.
The tech is sure sexy, but one has always to ask: cui bono?
> Is it worth doing so, or is it better to pursue negotiation? It depends on who one has to face.
Deterrence still works, last time I looked. If I'd want to send a few ten nukes, I'd use
or a container ship, or [a billion alternative]. Cheap, stealthy and reliable. You don't
know who it was.
> The technical benefits for developing land-based or airborne lasers is that it will likely,
> lead to rapid electrolysis of water into hydrogen, as well as fuel cell and super-capacitors.
These are chemical lasers. The lasing cavity looks a lot like a rocket motor. The stuff
doesn't scale, because too high photon flux will nuke your optics, and tracking in the
narrow temporal window (distance; the missile is fast and hardened) is a nightmare.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT