Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam

[oleg]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
... Just think: What happens if ICBM's with nuclear warheads become effectively nullified by laser-based anti-missle systems? No nuclear war -> no devastating nuclear-induced world-ending climate change.

Unfortunately, it will not. It will spring a new race to make a hardy missile, faster missile or something else. For exanple, Russia has a working design of fast-rotating modification of Tupol ICBM. The idea is to spread and decipate the heat over larger area - laser is not exactly a bullet after all.

Just few more trillions of $ to the dust bin. Why not keep the current status quo and send a man to Mars instead ?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by oleg:
Unfortunately, it will not. It will spring a new race to make a hardy missile, faster missile or something else. For exanple, Russia has a working design of fast-rotating modification of Tupol ICBM. The idea is to spread and decipate the heat over larger area - laser is not exactly a bullet after all.

Actually, it very well might make ICBM's obsolete - for one, it is harder to defend against a weapon than it is to make a Version that will penatrate the new defense; all it would take to knock out a spinning / faster/ more heavily armored ICBM is a higher powered laser / more lasers focused on the same point / spin tracking - all of which, once lasers are refined enough for "practical" military use, are simpler than speeding up/armoring/spinning the ICBM (armoring requires more engines & fuel (due to weight increase); speeding up the missle requires the same; spinning faster requires progressivly more computation intensive navigational components, while more focused on the same point simply requires more installations with a bit of co-ordination and spin tracking merely requires a measure of the spin and small degree of aim adjustmen; higher powered lasers might take some serious research). Sure, it's still the eternal weapon/armor dance (Make armor that will stop this weapon; okay, now make a weapon that will penetrate this armor; okay, now make armor that will....) - but the weapon side has always had the advantage, historically. In this case, it's fortunate that the ICBM is on the armor side.

However, even if ICBMs aren't fully obsoleted, it could provide an effective defense against older ICBMs in the hands of less technologically advanced Groups (most extremists fit that Category, if they have ICBMs at all), as well as providing a defensive measure with a reasonable expectation of success that nations can throw money at as an alternative to offensive nuclear capability.

Originally posted by oleg:

Just few more trillions of $ to the dust bin. Why not keep the current status quo and send a man to Mars instead ?

Actually, lasers may very well be a good stepping stone to the other planets; there is actually some research into lasers as a major component of propulsion in space.

Would the recourses be better spent elsewhere? Possibly. Will they be? Probably not. Are there useful non-military applications of the laser technology the military is developing? Yes.

[Fyron]

Keep in mind that a lot of modern technology was pioneered by the military as a means to kill people more effectively...

[PvK]

Defending against a few ICBM's is a very different problem from defending against a country with an armageddon-sized nuclear arsenal. If your nation has enough nuclear firepower to destroy the world many times over, no matter where they detonate their warheads, and you were considering nonsense such as ICBM warfare to destroy a continental-sized enemy, you were really talking about a flamethrower battle on the Hindenburg - mutual assured destruction. Against such a threat, lasers aren't much help, because if someone is threatening to destroy the whole planet, they can still do so by detonating their arsenal in their own silos.

Against "emerging nuclear powers", laser ABM might be useful. During the cold war, I was really worried about the idea of Reagan's "Star Wars" concept to try to make the Soviet arsenal obsolete. Imagine if the Soviets had been slowly developing an effective ABM system...

Humans... sigh...

PvK

[ November 04, 2003, 06:56: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Erax]

Actually, the whole point of "star wars" was to throw lots of money into defense, which the Soviets wouldn't be able to match without breaking their already overstretched economy. It wasn't necessary for the program to work as such, only to look as it might work.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Erax:
Actually, the whole point of "star wars" was to throw lots of money into defense, which the Soviets wouldn't be able to match without breaking their already overstretched economy. It wasn't necessary for the program to work as such, only to look as it might work.

A letter to The Economist published in its issue of 24th October 2003:

SIR - I had the occasion to speak confidentially with Edward Teller during Ronald Reagan's second term. As he was credited with authorship of he Strategic Defence Initiative ("Star Wars"), I asked him how it came about. He said that Reagan fashioned a bubble with his hands and said, "I wish I could put a protective shield over the country - to keep evil people from doing us harm." Teller told the president his vision was possible.

I asked Teller if it would work. "Now? No," he said and I asked why. He gave a bored shrug: "The technology doesn't exist." This was an astounding admission from the chief architect of Star Wars. Though it failed it is still credited with hastening the downfall of the Soviet Union. Teller displayed a profound lack of interest in the morality of launching a massive programme he knew would not work, and an overriding interest in the morality of defeating America's enemies.

GRANT STOCKDALE
Washington, DC

[ November 04, 2003, 10:11: Message edited by: deccan ]

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Keep in mind that a lot of modern technology was pioneered by the military as a means to kill people more effectively...

Like what for example?

I'm not being argumentative BTW - I would genuinely like to know some examples of this(plus it's generally reassuring to hear some sort of example when people make sweeping statements).

[geoschmo]

Re: The Teller interview in the Economist. What exactly is inherantly immoral about spending money on technology that does not currently exsist? That's what research and development is all about. At the start of the Manhattan project noone knew for sure the bomb would work. The same with the airplane, tanks, guns, any piece of weapons technology. And any civilian technology also for that matter.

The Stratregic Defense Initiative was a massive program to advance the technology needed to achieve a missle shield. Debate the morality of having a missle shield if you want, but once the decision is made to develop one, saying it's imorral to spend the money to research it is a bit odd.

[Cyrien]

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Keep in mind that a lot of modern technology was pioneered by the military as a means to kill people more effectively...

Like what for example?

I'm not being argumentative BTW - I would genuinely like to know some examples of this(plus it's generally reassuring to hear some sort of example when people make sweeping statements).

---

There is a TV show in the US on the History Channel now called "Tactical to Practical" that deals directly with this issue.

A few that I know of.

The Microwave Oven - by product of radar experiments
Radar - WW2. Yah.
GPS - Modern. For military location. Now it is everywhere.
Sonar - WW1. Hydrophone to find the first U-boats. Now try and find a modern fishing vessel that doesn't have it.
Jet Engines - WW2.
Kevlar - Saved many military lives and many police officer lives.
Night and Infrared Imaging technology - Oh yah. All over now. First the military though for obvious reasons.
The Computer - Some of the earliest computers and major computer breakthroughs were there to calculate the trajectories of ICBMs and calculate where they would hit. Also crypobreakers etc.
Nuclear Power - I shouldn't have to say more on this one.
Satellite Recon and Imaging - All military are first. Now lots of civilian firms that use this technology.
Cryptography - Military for wartime use to civilian, specifically for the computer in modern life.
Submarine (increasingly more uses for this vessel being foud in the civilian sector)

Just to name a few.
In fact most militarily advanced nations have programs or departments within the military that exist specifically to analyze the feasibility of releasing specific technologies to the public after having been developed for the military. These same agencies also have the role of analyzing developing civilian technologies and determining if they can be put to use for the military.

http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/keyfacts/f...sification.htm

I had one for the US but I closed the page and now I can't remember the combination of searches that got me to it.

[ November 04, 2003, 14:49: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[geoschmo]

Good list Cyrien. Two minor nitpicks.

The original mechanical and electromechanical computers were actually being used to calulate artillery trajectories before the invention of ICBMs. But the principle is correct.

And nuclear power is one on your list that I believe the early research was in the area of power generation and later was harnessed for it's explosive potential. I could be wrong about that though. Maybe the early reactors were just about making enough useable material to build a bomb.