Originally posted by scottishinnzSpread the technology to everyone and you won't have this problem! Of course the military would never allow that, but then, in principle at least aren't they the civilians' to command and not the other way?
That wasn't my point. My point is that once that system is in place, there will be no deterrent against the US using nuclear weapons against others, especially smaller states.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIn the situation/circumstances you refer to (a small nation with no nuclear missile capability), there's no deterrent now, then, is there? What difference would star wars make? What are you even talking about?
That wasn't my point. My point is that once that system is in place, there will be no deterrent against the US using nuclear weapons against others, especially smaller states.
Originally posted by GreatSantiniThe idea, as I understand it, is that if other nuclear powers, like Russia, were to think the US was developing a shield, they might strike first before the shield was fully developed so that they wouldn't have to deal with a highly belligerant America which was also invulnerable to nuclear retaliation.
In the situation/circumstances you refer to (a small nation with no nuclear missile capability), there's no deterrent now, then, is there? What difference would star wars make? What are you even talking about?
Originally posted by GreatSantiniI was referring to a small state either with or without the nuclear capability.
In the situation/circumstances you refer to (a small nation with no nuclear missile capability), there's no deterrent now, then, is there? What difference would star wars make? What are you even talking about?
Even a conventional weapon could kill a lot of people, properly targeted.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungParticle beams have one big disadvantage from a weapons pov:
I was thinking particle beams, not lasers. Particle beams don't need to sit on one spot for a period of time like lasers and so simple tricks like shiny rotating missiles won't stop them. Right?
They won't work in atmosphere and they are deflected by magnetic fields. So if you have a particle beam weapon in orbit, the earth's magnetic field would deflect the aiming of the beam which can be corrected for but it would only work in outer space. It would peter out pretty quickly as it hit the upper atmosphere. Think about cosmic rays. Every cosmic ray particle carries the energy of a well placed tennis ball, not bad for a single particle! But the energy of these things gets mostly lost in the atmosphere. Besides, even in space, a particle beam weapon could be deflected by a powerful magnetic field, a hundred thousand gauss field would not be THAT hard to make if they needed a defensive shield and if you make the shield big enough, it can be a lot smaller gauss wise than that. There are means right now of blowing up a magnetic field with an injection of ions into the field so the actual field could be the size of a small asteroid and deflect almost any particle beam weapon. One version of such a weapon that would not be effected by an electric or magnetic field would be a neutral beam weapon, like neutrons. However, neutrons are notoriously hard to accelerate precisely because the are immune to electric and magnetic fields. They can still be accelerated by other means but that's a whole other story. Even a neutral beam weapon would be useless in the atmoshpere however, it would be like a bullet plowing into water. Besides, Laser beams have an inherently faster response time because any particle beam weapon would go considerably slower than the speed of light. Anything in orbit, say 160 Km away, would be tapped by a laser beam in less than a millisecond.
It might take more like a half second for a particle beam to go the same distance which would give active electronics a relatively long time to prepare electronic shields and such.
1 edit
When I was a student in the early 1980s, a group of us went to visit RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire - a Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station.
This is where, as I understand it, one element of the proposed US defence system would be sited.
It was a fascinating place to visit - strange golf-ball structures on the Yorkshire moors (I think these are gone now).
They ran a simulation of what would happen in the event of a limited first strike from the USSR.
I always remember the officer explaining is that these places are amongst the safest places to be in the event of a nuclear attack. While this sounds contra-intuitive, he explained that the perceived wisdom is that you do not take out the other side's early warning stations. If you do, they do not know when you have stopped launching missiles. If they don't know whether you've stopped, you're getting everything they have left.
Originally posted by wedgehead2That's fine cuz they're not supposed to. The British at the facility are in charge of protecting you. And they both do their jobs with a bit of help from shared technology.
smilies are great! 🙂😀😉😛😏😵😲
But I don't feel the american guys at the bases are protecting me from anything much.
Originally posted by MerkThe amount of "sharing" is slightly questionable- we give information, you take it.
That's fine cuz they're not supposed to. The British at the facility are in charge of protecting you. And they both do their jobs with a bit of help from shared technology.