From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 04:14:04 MST
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, spike66 wrote:
> The only two places? What about from 10km with a B747 ABL,
What, a big fat slow aircraft with a rather weak chemical laser? To hit a
tiny, accelerating antireflex coated target downbelow, from a great
distance, under uncertain weather conditions?
> the airborne laser? The laser carrying 747, equipped with
> flares, chaff and radar decoys, with a fighter escort, would
All I see is a number of big fat blips on the radar. Any missile using
optical guidance will completely ignore all the flares, chaff and radar
stuff and the pesky fighters, and go for the big fat thing smack in the
middle.
> give the attacker some real headaches, especially considering
> he knows he only has 35 minutes to live after squeezing off
In the cold war the assumption was that you could get the bulk of your
missiles in the air before the opposite side would start landing hits.
> a missile.
How many of them will you leave cruising in foreign airspace, 24/7/365?
Must be very friendly of those foreign powers, to let them do that.
> Missile defense is certainly a difficult problem, but we
> should not declare it impossible. We must deal with it
It is difficult enough so that we shouldn't waste money on such
frivolities.
> eventually, for the Muslim extremists would be tempted to
> deliver a nuke by missile if at all possible.
Why on earth? What's wrong with a penthouse in Manhattan being a ground
zero for a device delivered via the elevator?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST