131–140 of 250 posts
Basically, if the US invested 1% of the GDP into developing a missile shield, could it achieve let's say a 98% success rate against incoming missiles?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is again a money play here, after all everything is a money play. Iron Beam (this system) is designed to intercept simple rockets, artillery, and etc for cheap. The total cost per shot is estimated at 2000USD overall (including life cycle of the parts, laser, etc) compared to 100000USD for Iron Dome missile alone. It is even more for more advanced stuff like Arrow 2, Arrow 3, or David's Sling (all, including Iro…
Automated counter-battery in addition to AD would be an interesting extra layer of deterrence.
1) Very often the launcher is unattended at the time of launch. You wouldn't get anything but an empty weapon.
2) You can be sure that the counter-battery fire would hit a lot of human shields. Hamas *loves* human shields.
"If we can intercept a missile or rocket with an electrical pulse that costs a few dollars, we will essentially neutralize the ring of fire that Iran has set up" This sets up a steampunk scenario where the missile must be controlled by a mechanical gyroscopic guidance system, immune from electrical pulses.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
This will do great work for their apartheid state! https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference being that with nuclear mutually assured destruction, the actual leaders are assured of their own personal destruction.
They aren't, that's why they have shelters and contingency plans for themselves and their families. If life were fair, they shouldn't be allowed to survive a nuclear war that they start, but life is rarely fair.
This tech will be the end of MAD and the start of WW3. The only thing holding back current super powers from direct confrontation are ICBMs and MAD. Once they can be reliably shot down via lasers, then full scale war is much more likely. I understand the current tech is for much slower, much lower rockets and cruise missiles. But the tech will evolve and get better. Israel is the current test bed for high tech defens…
I very much doubt this is effective against ICBMs. It'll be a ground-based system. ICBMs are just too far away, too much air in between. It's not a question of technology. It simply cannot be done from the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple beams creates a different problem. Say your beam is 1cm across and you are aiming at a 30cm target. All your energy is in that 1cm. You don't much care where in that 30cm it hits so long as it burns through. But with two lasers, to be effective, each beam needs to hit the same sport on the target. Instead of a 30cm target, laser #2 now has to hit the 1cm beam of the first laser.
Those lasers do not burn through. #2 does not have to hit exactly the same place as #1 is heating up to boil electronics. No idea, what is meant under lasers in article, but what they were describing could be even be concentrated radio microwaves to fry electronics. There is no need to use concentrated heat to heat up a tea - your target is making a tea, not making a hole in kettle.
I assume that even if you don't burn through a descending missile, merely deforming the nose cone can still cause it to go off course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple beams creates a different problem. Say your beam is 1cm across and you are aiming at a 30cm target. All your energy is in that 1cm. You don't much care where in that 30cm it hits so long as it burns through. But with two lasers, to be effective, each beam needs to hit the same sport on the target. Instead of a 30cm target, laser #2 now has to hit the 1cm beam of the first laser.
Those lasers do not burn through. #2 does not have to hit exactly the same place as #1 is heating up to boil electronics. No idea, what is meant under lasers in article, but what they were describing could be even be concentrated radio microwaves to fry electronics. There is no need to use concentrated heat to heat up a tea - your target is making a tea, not making a hole in kettle.