John Clark wrote:
>
> Spike Jones <spike66@attglobal.net> Wrote:
>
> >Turns out the ground radar failed, so in an actual attack
> >(on Seattle of course) it would have ordered a second
> > missile to be fired, wasting millions of dollars, even tho the first one
> > had already saved the fair city on the Pacific.
>
> No, it means after the first hit all the debris confused the system and it
> crashed, it was in no position to fire a second interceptor, it was in no
> position to do anything. It also means there would not have been a first
> hit if the attacker had released a few pounds of aluminum beer cans as chaff.
>
> >Nor does it become more difficult to stop the nukes that have already
> >been built,
>
> Sure it does. Example: You spend a trillion dollars or so on a super powerful
> LASER system to shoot things down. I paint my warheads white, now it needs
> hundreds or thousands of times the intensity to do the same thing.
Gee John, if that's the solution, why aren't IRVs already painted white?
>
> >Many are the potential customers who can afford only one missile,
>
> North Korea, Iraq, Libya, China, they only plan to have one missile and one
> warhead in their arsenal? I don't think so.
At the current time, I believe that China has a ballistic missile fleet
of 80 ICBMs, but is building more. The first generation SBL (Space Based
Laser) is designed to destroy a missile in boost phase with firing times
of 2 seconds per missile, with acquisition times of an additional 3
seconds. With 20 SBL's launched and in orbit, 100% of the world is
covered by one SBL at all times, and 20%+ is covered by 2 SBLs at all
times. Given this, a single SBL could target, acquire, and destroy 80
ICBMs in under 7 minutes during the boost phase, a phase during which
decoys are not feasible.
Increasing the SBL fleet to 40 stations provides coverage of 2-4 SBL's
over any point over the entire globe at all times, sufficient to
interdict nuclear attacks of 160-320 missiles in the same 7 minute
launch window. If missiles are launched over a wider window, then the
SBL fleet can interdict more missiles.
As higher power SBLs are developed, firing time per missile can be
reduced, and as acquisition and targeting technologies increase to
multi-target acquisition, SBLs can be clustered in orbit on battle
platforms with shorter acquisition times.
>
> >and have not the sophistication to actually modify what has already been built.
>
> So, this weapon will defend us providing the enemy is poor stupid and ignorant, but
> remember, beer is cheap and beer cans even cheaper.
And just who is most likely to attack us? A country that is highly
developed with much to lose, or a poor, ignorant country with little to
lose?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:50 MDT