John Clark wrote:
> The difference is that heavier than air flight does not become more difficult
> as time progresses but an effective anti-Missile system does.
In this I beg to differ. Reentry vehicles do not change much with time,
they
cannot be made to go much faster [without burning up] The development
that
has made possible laser antimissile defense is... faster computers.
These
make possible more effective feedback and control loops. The lasers
themselves have not changed that much, but the adaptive optics, which
focus and guide the beams to a white hot point, are guided by computers,
which get better and faster always.
Secondly, I suggest that these ABM systems cannot be easily defeated by
massive redundancy [ever more warheads] because the laser systems can
also
be multiplied arbitrarily. It will not be getting cheaper to store
missiles
and god knows it wont be getting cheap to launch stuff anytime real
soon,
perhaps not before nanotech, at which time we have a lotta new headaches
to defend against. I do not suggest the world suddenly becomes safe once
we figure out how to shoot down missiles... {8-[ Life was so much
simpler
when we just had the good guys vs the commies.
> Example: There has been a lot of talk about optical LASERS fired from airplanes,
> but if I just buy some paint at Home Depot and paint my warhead white you'll have to
> increase the power of your LASER about a hundred times.
Awww, c'mon John, humor me just a little. Do you really believe that
those
who dream up these systems have not anticipated this? They know a thing
or two about highly reflective coatings. {8-] spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:15 MDT