John Clark wrote:
> Spike Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wrote:
> >Reentry vehicles do not change much with time,
> Cruse Missiles. Stealth technology. Cheap balloon decoys. Armored warheads.
> Warheads in orbit. Electro Magnetic Pulse Bombs. Suitcase Nukes. And most
> important of all, quantity.
> >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.
> No, not arbitrarily. You've already admitted that defense is much more expensive than
> offence so just building more defense is simply not going to work unless your resources
> are infinite. They're not.
> >>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?
> I'm sure that somebody involved in the project had taken Physics in High School so the
> idea must have been tossed around. However they concluded, quite correctly, that it had
> nothing to do with the main function of the system, to provide employment for themselves
> and their friends. I mean, if the system is ever actually needed nobody expects to be held
> accountable afterward when it fails to work as promised.
> John K Clark email@example.com
Well, there is the issue of the troika, there are bunkered ICBMs, submarines, and bombers.
Destabilizing that are the issues of more volatile powers developing nuclear capabilities such
as the recent countries expressing their statement by violating the environment with nuclear
blast tests, e.g., Mururoa. Most dangerous in almost any scenario is that while MAD (Mutually
Assured Destruction) generally proves that nuclear armed states will not launch them at each
other, there are many delivery methods and some chance each year that functional weapons of
largescale mass destruction would be acquired or manufactured by rogue parties.
In terms of futuristic defense mechanisms, having something in orbit already gives it a lot of
momentum when it hits the ground. "Brilliant Pebbles" and ground based lasers are of note,
and ground-to-air rockets should be developed in the long run as a tool to push away rogue
In terms of ICBMs, one thing that would be very cost-effective against them would be, if they
were launched en masse, would be to launch a much higher speed vector of some kind of massive
EMP pule to disable their guidance, although they are presumed to be hardened. If sufficient
targeting exists, then the "Brilliant Pebbles" scenario is perhaps most effective, as they
could wap ICBMs on their way up, falling from orbit where they are already established.
Moscow is supposed to have an anti-missile system, I don't know if it is ever tested.
Matthias Rust flew right into Red Square, no? This was known to the rest of the world, and
wasn't really a big deal.
My advice: drive friendly.
About the lasers I think you can adjust the frequency to make them non-visible or something,
ablative and reflective materials would still be effective laser retardant. How about a
magnetic tube focussing a plasma burst from a tokamak, except it would diffuse when it got
past the containment.
Anyways, curtail your statist state today. Have a nice day.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:59 MDT