# Weaponization Of Space



## Zhukov (Aug 29, 2004)

> *China Calls For Preventing Outer Space Arms Race*
> Geneva (XNA) Aug 27, 2004
> 
> China called Thursday for international consensus and a legally-binding agreement on preventing an arms race in outer space.
> China's Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs, Hu Xiaodi, told delegates to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament here: "In our view, the priority concern is to further consolidate an international consensus on prevention of weaponization and an arms race in outer space in the form of a legal commitment or a legal instrument."



http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html


Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability.  Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Annie (Aug 29, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html
> 
> 
> Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability.  Why am I not surprised?



Unless there is a change on their part or outs, China will be the USSR with the US in less than 15 years. It is a scary scenario with their population.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 29, 2004)

The obvious solution to that scenario is a geosynchronus network of space platforms armed with nuclear gravity bombs.  Launchers on the platform supply a small nudge and gravity does the rest.  Provide an invulnerable control center, like a lunar outpost, and you have the ultimate deterent.

Even given a surprise and large-scale attack on the United States our nuclear response would be unstoppable and complete.

It isn't surprising the Chinese would rather we didn't move in that direction.

The worst thing we could do is allow the Chinese to reach parity.


----------



## Annie (Aug 29, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> The obvious solution to that scenario is a geosynchronus network of space platforms armed with nuclear gravity bombs.  Launchers on the platform supply a small nudge and gravity does the rest.  Provide an invulnerable control center, like a lunar outpost, and you have the ultimate deterent.
> 
> Even given a surprise and large-scale attack on the United States our nuclear response would be unstoppable and complete.
> 
> ...



I agree with your ending, though I think there will be strong arguments made that it's in 'our' best interests to not be the only 'superpower/hyperpower'. It would be a mistake, but one I can see coming.


----------



## wade (Aug 29, 2004)

Come on people, China is not concerned about offensive nuclear weapons platforms.  We really have little need for such anyway, when our ground and submarine based missiles can reach anywhere in 15 minutes or less.

This is about stopping defensive systems which use small nukes to ensure destruction of enemy ballistic missiles.  They will proably also want to ban nuclear powered laser systems, which use a nuke to generate the energy for the beam (these are 1 shot units).

I think the whole idea however is silly, the USA will want to have nuclear powered space stations and spacecraft in the not to distant future, and we will not agree not to deploy such items.  Once the fissionable material and reactors are up there, making nukes up there is too easy.

Wade.


----------



## Annie (Aug 29, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Come on people, China is not concerned about offensive nuclear weapons platforms.  We really have little need for such anyway, when our ground and submarine based missiles can reach anywhere in 15 minutes or less.
> 
> This is about stopping defensive systems which use small nukes to ensure destruction of enemy ballistic missiles.  They will proably also want to ban nuclear powered laser systems, which use a nuke to generate the energy for the beam (these are 1 shot units).
> 
> ...




Grow up:  http://www.cia.gov/nic/confreports_chinawmd.html


----------



## Merlin1047 (Aug 29, 2004)

Let's see - which other nation has the capability to field space-based weapons?  I'm no expert, and perhaps there are secrets we don't know about, but my guess would be that the answer to that question is "none".

So the Chinese are not asking for a treaty per se, they are demanding that we simply roll over and give up our advantage.  And we should do that for no other reason than the Chinese want us to do so.  Sounds like they really need to get kerry elected.

My first question to them would be - "whatcha got to trade, Bubba?"  Excuse me, make that "Bubba-san".

If the Chinese want us to give up a system that would give the USA an overwhelming advantage for about the next 30 to 50 years, then they had better be prepared to pony up something in exchange.  And I'm not talking more cultural exchange groups either.  More like they should shut the hell up about Taiwan - and that's just for starters.


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

I suspect China could put up space based nuke platforms.  If they cannot today, they will be able to do so very soon.  Several other nations are capable as well.  Any country which can put up a satalite can put up such a platform.

Personally, I think we should agree not to place offensive nuclear weapons in space.  But we should definitely retain the right to use nukes for defensive purposes, such as putting a tac in the nose of an anti-ballistic missile.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Grow up:  http://www.cia.gov/nic/confreports_chinawmd.html



Nothing new there Kathianne.  How does this conflict with what I posted?

What's your problem Kathianne?  I think you do not understand what you read more than half the time.  You go off on a wild hare.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Personally, I think we should agree not to place offensive nuclear weapons in space.



Why?  Please give one good reason.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Come on people, China is not concerned about offensive nuclear weapons platforms.  We really have little need for such anyway, when our ground and submarine based missiles can reach anywhere in 15 minutes or less.



The locations of our land based ICBM installations are known.

Submarines can be tracked and destroyed.

There are Chinese spies in our country.

Besides, the platforms would be defensive, not offensive.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 30, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html
> 
> 
> Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability.  Why am I not surprised?




they might approve AFTER they establish thier own !


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> The locations of our land based ICBM installations are known.
> 
> Submarines can be tracked and destroyed.
> 
> ...



So what if they know where our land based ICBM's are?  No one in the modern world has the ability to do anything about them - I assume you understand how our ICBM system works - it is designed to be functional even after a Soviet first strike at the peak of their power.  And who in the modern world can track and destroy our subs?  (answer: no one can).

I agree, they would be defensive, and thus we should not agree to anything that limits our ability to place such a system in orbit.

However, I must also point out the significant danger of such a program.  Launching plutonium into space is inherantly dangerous.  If the launch system fails that material is going to contaminate a significant area.  It takes at least a kilo of weapons grade plutonium to make a bomb (theoretically about 1/3rd of this could be used, but practically speaking 1 kilo is the minimum), and typically about 3-5 kilos are involved.  A reasonable anti-ballistic satalite would have a half a dozen or so such warheads on board.  Six warheads at 3 kilos each equals 18 kilos per launch.  If such a launch should go bad, this would mean something on the order of a 100% lukemia rate within moderately large region (lets say 10 square miles) of the landing point, dropping to about 1% within 50-80 miles down wind in a triangular pattern, depending on the altitude of dispersal and wind conditions.  Risks for an early lauch failure could be minimized, as the landing area could be confined to the ocean, but a late launch failure would mean it could come down just about anywhere.  If it sould come down on a major metropolitan area, there could be hundreds of thousands or even millions (NYC, London, Moscow, Tokyo, etc..) of deaths.

I'm not sure how reasonable such a risk is, it would require a great deal of information to decide.  But in general, I think we should put up a few such defensive satalites - enough to stop perhaps a dozen inbound missiles, perhaps 36 tacs on 6 satalites.  Other than that, we should confine space lauched plutonium to that needed to power spacestations and spacecraft, which not being weapons grade is not as dangerous.

Another point is that if we start putting up space based nukes, it is only a matter of time before the Chineese and possibly other nations do too.  While our successful launch rate is pretty good, the chances of them having a failure are unacceptably high.  And they would probably be using larger critical masses since their nuke tech is inferior - further increasing the danger.

Wade.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Aug 30, 2004)

The Chinese are simultaneously aggressively pursuing space and nuclear programs.  No wonder they want to stop us.  They know that if they play to the left in this country, the left will insist we stop and that will then give China time to catch up using a lot of the info they obtained during the Clinton administration.

This is just an attempt at a stall tactic by the Chinese.

The Chinese and Koreans are very tough negotiators.  If you give an inch, they will try to take a mile.  The more you give, the more they want, so we better not fall into their trap.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> So what if they know where our land based ICBM's are?  No one in the modern world has the ability to do anything about them - I assume you understand how our ICBM system works - it is designed to be functional even after a Soviet first strike at the peak of their power.



Our ICBM installations can not withstand a direct hit.  Nothing we've built, not NORAD, not Greenbriar, nothing can withstand a direct hit.  At least nothing that's been made public knowledge.



> And who in the modern world can track and destroy our subs?  (answer: no one can).



Obviously you missed that article about how U.S. Naval personel were concerned about North Korean subs.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9419



> If such a launch should go bad, this would mean something on the order of a 100% lukemia rate within moderately large region (lets say 10 square miles) of the landing point,



Poor fish.



> Other than that, we should confine space lauched plutonium to that needed to power spacestations and spacecraft, which not being weapons grade is not as dangerous.



This provides a good solution.  Uranium is sent to the moon to be used in base reactors and in turn is converted to weapons grade fissile material.

By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.

It goes without saying that any material we did launch should be placed in a position where it could be ejected from the rocket in case of malfunction and also sealed in lead. 



> Another point is that if we start putting up space based nukes, it is only a matter of time before the Chineese and possibly other nations do too.



In my opinion it's only a matter of time before they do _regardless_ of what we do or what treaties they sign.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 30, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Our ICBM installations can not withstand a direct hit.  Nothing we've built, not NORAD, not Greenbriar, nothing can withstand a direct hit.  At least nothing that's been made public knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed--lets put one up there and call it Damocles


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Our ICBM installations can not withstand a direct hit.  Nothing we've built, not NORAD, not Greenbriar, nothing can withstand a direct hit.  At least nothing that's been made public knowledge.



The idea that anyone but the former, now non-existant, Soviet Union could even attempt to take out our minuteman III and MX missiles is perposterous.  At best they might take out a few, but it requires a near direct hit, and that still leaves lots of other silos to fire.  Our defenses are planed arround a hypothetical Soviet first strike where they turn thousands of square miles into an inferno with an average temperature of 1100 degrees C through sucessive repeated thermonuclear strikes by hundreds of missiles.  No country in the world today, other than the USA, posesses such a capacity - even the Soviet systems are deemed no longer capable of delivering such a strike.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Obviously you missed that article about how U.S. Naval personel were concerned about North Korean subs.



The concern is over their potential to deliver nukes to US cities, not thier capability to defeat our offensive weapons, and especially not their ability to track or destroy our subs.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> This provides a good solution.  Uranium is sent to the moon to be used in base reactors and in turn is converted to weapons grade fissile material.



 I'm living in the year 2004.  You must be living in the year 2050 or beyond if you think such a solution is practical within your lifetime.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.



Everything I said was based upon relatively minimal critical masses.  To detonate a fusion bomb still requires a critical mass, so you cannot really reduce the amount of weapons grade material that has to be launched into space.  Hydrogen bombs actually require two fissionable critical masses, so that means at least 2-6 KG per warhead.  There is no reduction in deadly material to be had via this approach, and for defensive purposes it makes no sense to go thermo-nuclear anyway, a .1 or .2 kt warhead is more than sufficient.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> It goes without saying that any material we did launch should be placed in a position where it could be ejected from the rocket in case of malfunction and also sealed in lead.



Ejecting it?  Sealing it in lead?  If their is a failure, the delivery vehicle is going to explode and it is unlikely the material is going to be ejected, and the ejection system is yet another failure point, and is costly in terms of payload.  Lead is almost useless, as it would likely melt either from the launche vehicle explosion or re-entry, and again it is very heavy and makes for a very costly launch.  Only enough sheilding to make the material safe to handle if things go well makes sense.  The idea of placing the material in a containment vessle capable of withstanding a launch vehicle explosion and re-entry is simply not practical.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> In my opinion it's only a matter of time before they do _regardless_ of what we do or what treaties they sign.



Well, the easy way to stop that is to develop the capacity to put them up rather quickly, and then if a threat nation starts to try to do so, we have an ace in that we can threaten to, or actually deploy, a fully operational ABM system in short order.  It would take years for any other nation to do so, at least through the next decade.

Wade.


----------



## drac (Aug 30, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html
> 
> 
> Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability.  Why am I not surprised?


i believe russians have a space based missile technology as an answer to our missile shield.


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

drac said:
			
		

> i believe russians have a space based missile technology as an answer to our missile shield.



Deployed?  Based upon what info?

Wade.


----------



## drac (Aug 30, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Agreed--lets put one up there and call it Damocles


ahh the greeks, they thought about it long before. does anyone has a special scissors?


----------



## drac (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Deployed?  Based upon what info?
> 
> Wade.


not deployed, operated in. I read some info on it during the "activation" of the missile shield project here. I can try to look it up.
Basically russians answer was to send missiles through space or use "suicide" satelites against ours, as far as i remember.


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

Well, I do not believe the Russians have any nukes of any kind in orbit.  It's kinda hard to hide such things, and we wouldn't tolerate it.  I can believe they had such weapons ready to launch, but not deployed.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Aug 30, 2004)

You're an interesting cat, Wade.  You appear to be concerned about American Security on the surface, yet your dubious conclusions, if set in policy, would be a dismal failure of our national security.


----------



## drac (Aug 30, 2004)

drac said:
			
		

> not deployed, operated in. I read some info on it during the "activation" of the missile shield project here. I can try to look it up.
> Basically russians answer was to send missiles through space or use "suicide" satelites against ours, as far as i remember.



Wade
here is quick google search
http://www.cnduk.org/pages/synopsis.htm
http://www.russianforces.org/podvig/eng/publications/space/20040700aaas.shtml
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/centers.html

Again, i did not say russians have nukes in space.


----------



## drac (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Well, I do not believe the Russians have any nukes of any kind in orbit.  It's kinda hard to hide such things, and we wouldn't tolerate it.  I can believe they had such weapons ready to launch, but not deployed.
> 
> Wade.


I have not heard about russians having any nukes in space. But honestly, i do not see why would it be difficult to have one. It is just a rocket, but i can be wrong. In the case of hiding it, hm how would we know?


----------



## ajwps (Aug 30, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Grow up:  http://www.cia.gov/nic/confreports_chinawmd.html



Kathianne the fact that China does not want a space war (really an anti-missile system) in space is that they cannot afford to keep up with the West.

They know all to well what busted Communist Russia and brought it down. Reagan called for the 'star wars' program which resulted in a race to have parity in preventing the other side from having a tactical advantage.

China has just got their first space vehicle into space. Israel, the US and a few others have already accompllished this feat. Even a private American entreprise has sent a vehicle into space. 

China is still a backward country trying to achieve economic parity with the West. Is there any wonder that they don't want to spend themselves into bankruptcy? A bankruptcy that would effectively end their communist rulers from office.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Our defenses are planed arround a hypothetical Soviet first strike



I wonder then how we'd do after a surprise decapitation attack caused by multiple simultaneous nuclear detonations from bombs smuggled into country.  The whole point of my initial comment was about providing an invulnerable means of delivering an overwhelming nuclear strike.  China wouldn't have to hit every single one of our ICBM installations to knock out their ability to fire.



> The concern is over their potential to deliver nukes to US cities, not thier capability to defeat our offensive weapons, and especially not their ability to track or destroy our subs.



"Following several years of relative inaction, the U.S. Navy is charging ahead with plans to neutralize what it sees as the growing menace of
enemy diesel-electric submarines. Diesel-electric boats, although relatively low-tech, *are emerging as a decided threat to military assets around the world* and civilian targets in the United States, officials said."



> I'm living in the year 2004.  You must be living in the year 2050 or beyond if you think such a solution is practical within your lifetime.



Actually I've saw plans for just such an installation while I interned for Dr. Borowski back when I was in high school.  Those particular reactors weren't designed to produce weapons grade material but such a reactor wouldn't be too different.

With proper funding (which of course will never happen) we could probably have such an installation up in 15 years.



> To detonate a fusion bomb still requires a critical mass, so you cannot really reduce the amount of weapons grade material that has to be launched into space.



Tritium and deutirium are hardly as much of a health threat as weapons grade plutonium.  



> Hydrogen bombs actually require two fissionable critical masses, so that means at least 2-6 KG per warhead.
> 
> Your analysis of fusion bombs is completely wrong.  First, a hydrogen bomb requires only one fissionable critical mass to compress the tritium-deutirium pit.  Likewise, a fusion boosted fission device requires only a single fission charge.  Finally, considering a fusion bomb is on the order of over 2-20X more powerful than a fission device while being not much heavier or larger than fission bombs, and as I already mentioned in a fusion bomb some fissile material is replaced with tritium and deuterium, you have reduced the amount of radioactive weapons grade plutonium.
> 
> ...


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're an interesting cat, Wade.  You appear to be concerned about American Security on the surface, yet your dubious conclusions, if set in policy, would be a dismal failure of our national security.



You must not understand my position.  If we followed my policies, we'd have used neutron bombs in Afgahistan and Iraq, and Bin-Ladin would be dead and we would not need to be occupying Iraq right now.  Other nations would be trying real hard not to even appear to be supporting terrorism in any way.  Our position w.r.t. the rest of the world would not be any worse than it now is, and we would have a military capable of acting wherever needed, rather than being completely consumed in occupying just two threat nations.  And we would have the finanicial capacity to do a lot more in terms of intelligence and boarder security.

As for the nukes in space issue, I simply don't think we need them to create an effective ABM system.  A space based ABM system can be successfully deployed using conventional warheads, it would just require more of them.  And we simply have no need for such a system to deliver offensive nukes, land, air, and sea based delivery systems are more than sufficient.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

drac said:
			
		

> I have not heard about russians having any nukes in space. But honestly, i do not see why would it be difficult to have one. It is just a rocket, but i can be wrong. In the case of hiding it, hm how would we know?




Without a very significant containment vessle, the material itself would stand out like a sore thumb to our satalites and even earthbound sensors.  And a containment vessle of sufficient size would be conspicuous in and of itself.  For years we were able to track soviet subs by watching their reactors from space - until the soviets realized this and sheilded them from such detection (did they succeed?).

Such a system is not so simple, it must be capable of positioning itself and generating specific momentums very quickly and precisely or it would not be able to deliver the weapons where desired.  They would also have to have some kind of stealth or significant ECM and/or self defense capacity, or they are sitting ducks for countermeasures.  It would be much much easier to take out a space based nuke plateform when conducting a first strike than to take out hardened silos, especially if those silos involve underground rail systems and multiple launch points.

And they also have to carry pretty signficant missiles, simply gravity dropping means a long time (realtively speaking) between launch and impact, defeating the whole intent of the system.  Each warhead or MIRV would have to sit on a missile at least 8-12 feet in length to achieve a delivery time advantage.

Wade.


----------



## drac (Aug 31, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Without a very significant containment vessle, the material itself would stand out like a sore thumb to our satalites and even earthbound sensors.  And a containment vessle of sufficient size would be conspicuous in and of itself.  For years we were able to track soviet subs by watching their reactors from space - until the soviets realized this and sheilded them from such detection (did they succeed?).
> 
> Such a system is not so simple, it must be capable of positioning itself and generating specific momentums very quickly and precisely or it would not be able to deliver the weapons where desired.  They would also have to have some kind of stealth or significant ECM and/or self defense capacity, or they are sitting ducks for countermeasures.  It would be much much easier to take out a space based nuke plateform when conducting a first strike than to take out hardened silos, especially if those silos involve underground rail systems and multiple launch points.
> 
> ...


ok i do not know much about nuke, so what you posted sounds very reasonable. I would just assume, that if one have a small space station, one might have couple missile attached to it armed with nukes, does not have to be a large one. I will check on that matter, thank you for getting my curiosity up.  
On the other note. You know they (russian or china) does not need to have nukes up in the space. I would think couple EM armed satelites will be enough to knock down most of our satelites. Without them i would think most of our "smart" weapons will be as dumb as next simple cannon shell. As well as most of the advance communication systems.


----------



## drac (Aug 31, 2004)

BTW  just wanted to mention, Russia and China were together on the idea of de-weaponization of space


----------



## HGROKIT (Aug 31, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> The Chinese are simultaneously aggressively pursuing space and nuclear programs.  No wonder they want to stop us.  They know that if they play to the left in this country, the left will insist we stop and that will then give China time to catch up using a lot of the info they obtained during the Clinton administration.
> 
> This is just an attempt at a stall tactic by the Chinese.
> 
> The Chinese and Koreans are very tough negotiators.  If you give an inch, they will try to take a mile.  The more you give, the more they want, so we better not fall into their trap.


Let's also not forget about the stuff that has been "disappearing" out of Los Alamos.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Aug 31, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> You must not understand my position.  If we followed my policies, we'd have used neutron bombs in Afgahistan and Iraq, and Bin-Ladin would be dead and we would not need to be occupying Iraq right now.  Other nations would be trying real hard not to even appear to be supporting terrorism in any way.  Our position w.r.t. the rest of the world would not be any worse than it now is, and we would have a military capable of acting wherever needed, rather than being completely consumed in occupying just two threat nations.  And we would have the finanicial capacity to do a lot more in terms of intelligence and boarder security.
> 
> As for the nukes in space issue, I simply don't think we need them to create an effective ABM system.  A space based ABM system can be successfully deployed using conventional warheads, it would just require more of them.  And we simply have no need for such a system to deliver offensive nukes, land, air, and sea based delivery systems are more than sufficient.
> 
> Wade.



We do have need.


----------



## MrMarbles (Aug 31, 2004)

Weapons in space is a very backward concept. The only country in the world that can challenge the US is China, and they are becoming more democratizes and central in policies everyday. Weapons in space is only going to create an arms race and revert the world back to a cold war scenario, ya for progress!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Aug 31, 2004)

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Weapons in space is a very backward concept. The only country in the world that can challenge the US is China, and they are becoming more democratizes and central in policies everyday. Weapons in space is only going to create an arms race and revert the world back to a cold war scenario, ya for progress!



Actually.  china has become the textbook definition of a fascist state, with no clear line whatsoever between government and business, and the government subsidizing any industry it wants to secure world domination, and prisoners being used as slave labor for private industry, yeah for progress.  This is why capitalism must come with a  constitution and bill of rights.

Weapons in space a backward concept?  It seems advanced to me.   Did the muslims invent weapons in space along with the concept of zero?


----------



## CSM (Aug 31, 2004)

Iran has been trying to develop an ICBM capability for some time now. They also have been trying to buy/develop satellite technology. China, Russia, and North Korea are busy helping out.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/iris.htm


----------



## CSM (Aug 31, 2004)

More:

Tel Aviv Haaretz
August 31, 2004 

Media Reports From Tehran: Latest Iranian Missile Has Upgraded Warhead

By Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz Correspondent

The warhead of the Iranian Shihab-3 missile has been considerably upgraded, according to photographs published in Iranian newspapers of test launches three weeks ago.

It is believed that the improvements will permit slower entry into the atmosphere so the warhead, which may be chemical in nature, will be more durable and its contents will be better protected. It is also believed that the missile's range has been extended.

The operational and technological conclusions from the changes in the missile indicate that the Iranians are not resting on their laurels in developing their surface-to-surface missiles, and have shown a daring approach to their technological planning.

Overseas assistance

It is very likely that the Iranians are being assisted by foreign experts from the former Soviet Union hired by Iran under personal contracts, or by experts from North Korea.

It is also likely that the Iranian effort is not limited to the Shihab-3, which has a range of about 1,300 kilometers, but also to the Shihab 4, planned with a range of 2,000 kilometers or more.

At present the Shihab-3 can already come within range of Turkey, which is a member of NATO, as well as most Saudi Arabian cities and oil fields. On the last test of the Shihab-3 on August 11, the missile did not pass the maximum trajectory that had been determined for it.

The Iranians gave the experimental launch extensive media coverage, stressing that the test was a response to an Israeli experimental launch of the Arrow missile, which intercepted a Scud missile in the U.S. at the end of July.

It subsequently turned out that the reported success of the Shihab's launch was intended to camouflage a failure in the missile's flight early in the launch.

New details

However the photographs published by the Iranians show several new details. In addition to the new warhead, the missile was fired from an operational vehicle and not from an ordinary surface launcher. In all the other Shihab-3 tests, the warhead was cone-shaped, but this time it has a new, flatter shape and appears to have various short wings.

Experts from various countries are expected to analyze the technological and operational aspects of the new form of the Shihab-3. It is especially interesting to several European countries, which understand that the day is not far when Iranian missiles will be within range of a considerable portion of Europe.


----------



## ajwps (Aug 31, 2004)

China remains a dichotomy between captalism and communism. In other words, the communist leaders allow a form of capitalism because they need to be able to compete in the world in an arms race and to maintain total control over their masses.

Ayn Rand born in St. Petersburg, Russia said it best.

(paraphrased) *'By its very nature, Communism must collapse under its own weight.'*


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Aug 31, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> China remains a dichotomy between captalism and communism. In other words, the communist leaders allow a form of capitalism because they need to be able to compete in the world in an arms race and to maintain total control over their masses.
> 
> Ayn Rand born in St. Petersburg, Russia said it best.
> 
> (paraphrased) *'By its very nature, Communism must collapse under its own weight.'*




China will not collapse under it's own weight.  Like you said it's a unique hybrid.  Pure fascism.  Thus, we need space based defense, no matter how much you fear christianity.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 31, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> It would be much much easier to take out a space based nuke plateform when conducting a first strike than to take out hardened silos, especially if those silos involve underground rail systems and multiple launch points.



I don't think so.

Considering that your typical land based ICBM has a range of around 5500 to 6000 km, and a nuclear platform in space would be at a geosynchronous orbit of roughly 35,000 km above sea level, one would not only require a multiple staged rocket just to get to the platform but that rocket would take between 2 to 5 times longer to reach the platform than a typical land based ICBM would take from launch to impact.  The time difference is further exagerrated when comparing an attack against a platform to a submarine based attack against ground targets.

An aggressor country would not be able to take out a space platform by surprise before lauching a theatre wide attack.  The launch of the rocket intended to strike the platform would be detected hours before impact, by which time our response would already be re-entering the atmosphere.

Besides, space platforms, probably being fairly expensive, would undoubtedly have a capacity to defend themselves.


----------



## CSM (Aug 31, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> I don't think so.
> 
> Considering that your typical land based ICBM has a range of around 5500 to 6000 km, and a nuclear platform in space would be at a geosynchronous orbit of roughly 35,000 km above sea level, one would not only require a multiple staged rocket just to get to the platform but that rocket would take between 2 to 5 times longer to reach the platform than a typical land based ICBM would take from launch to impact.  The time difference is further exagerrated when comparing an attack against a platform to a submarine based attack against ground targets.
> 
> ...



UNLESS a country had "satellite killers" in orbit as well. I seem to remember that being a concern of both the US and the old Soviet Union at one time.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 31, 2004)

Yes, a large focused neutron bomb could take out the electronics of anything not shielded.

I don't know how close such a bomb would have to be to be effective.

Of course in response, the platform would have a kill sphere about it, in that any object entering within twice the effective range of a neutron bomb would be immeadiately targeted for destruction.

The construction of these platforms would not be independent of an exhaustive survey of any objects already in high orbits.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Aug 31, 2004)

Anyone else?  Anyone else care to attempt to subvert american security while pretending to care about it?  Wade?  AJ?  You guys done?


----------



## DKSuddeth (Aug 31, 2004)

new nuclear missile subs should do the trick, coupled with a couple of new sub hunter escorts. yeah, thats it.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

There are lots of ways they could knock down our satalites.  Simply firing a few nukes and detonating them in space would create an EM pulse sufficent to kill most of our satalites.

It only takes 3 such space burst nukes to kill all but the most hardened communciations systems in the continental USA, so as you can imagine, it would take relatively few to take out all but the most hardened of military sats.

Some good sites to get you started:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page006.html

http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/nuclear_weapons.html

http://www.barryrudolph.com/pages/atomic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Enjoy (I'll try to edit this and add some more later),

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> I don't think so.
> 
> Considering that your typical land based ICBM has a range of around 5500 to 6000 km, and a nuclear platform in space would be at a geosynchronous orbit of roughly 35,000 km above sea level, one would not only require a multiple staged rocket just to get to the platform but that rocket would take between 2 to 5 times longer to reach the platform than a typical land based ICBM would take from launch to impact.  The time difference is further exagerrated when comparing an attack against a platform to a submarine based attack against ground targets.
> 
> ...



No because there is no coasting time required.  When firing an ICBM, it is fired on a trajectory and then must coast through a re-entry pattern.  When firing a weapon designed to take out an orbital platform, there is no coast time needed, just a bigger rocket. Maintaining the burn for just a short while longer will yeild increadible speeds.  It can continue to accelerate all (or most of) the way to the target and it can be detonated quite a distance from the target and still take it out. 

Yes you could put defensive systems on a satalite, but this would make it geometrically more expensive - and counter counter measures could also be used.  Once the first bomb goes off anywhere near the platform, its probably blind and unable to defend itself for a significant time period anyway.  Attacking anti-satalite missiles would not need to "see", as they would already know where the target is (close enough), so you could fire a nuke to detonate well below the target and then follow that with the killer missile.

Wade.


----------



## ajwps (Aug 31, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> No because there is no coasting time required.  When firing an ICBM, it is fired on a trajectory and then must coast through a re-entry pattern.  When firing a weapon designed to take out an orbital platform, there is no coast time needed, just a bigger rocket. Maintaining the burn for just a short while longer will yeild increadible speeds.  It can continue to accelerate all (or most of) the way to the target and it can be detonated quite a distance from the target and still take it out.
> 
> Yes you could put defensive systems on a satalite, but this would make it geometrically more expensive - and counter counter measures could also be used.  Once the first bomb goes off anywhere near the platform, its probably blind and unable to defend itself for a significant time period anyway.  Attacking anti-satalite missiles would not need to "see", as they would already know where the target is (close enough), so you could fire a nuke to detonate well below the target and then follow that with the killer missile.
> Wade.



Of course state of the art technology can now detect within seconds any rocket firing from anywhere on earth. When any missile or rocket fires, the initial burn and lift off takes up to a minute and by the time any speed is achieved, immediate counter measures unknown except to the military complex can eliminate any number of threats long before the initial ballistic missile leaves the earth's atmosphere.

It is highly unlikely that a nuclear blast would result from a missile being stopped by countermeasures and in no way effect an orbiting platform. I personally have no knowledge of these countermeasures but I do know several scientists who continually work on these problems and have been doing so for a number of years.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> I wonder then how we'd do after a surprise decapitation attack caused by multiple simultaneous nuclear detonations from bombs smuggled into country.



Smuggling bombs into the country is not an easy trick, there are lots of ways these can be seen by our equipment, and hiding them from that equipment requires large, conspicuous containers.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> The whole point of my initial comment was about providing an invulnerable means of delivering an overwhelming nuclear strike.  China wouldn't have to hit every single one of our ICBM installations to knock out their ability to fire.



Yes, you pretty much do.  That's the whole point of the design.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> "Following several years of relative inaction, the U.S. Navy is charging ahead with plans to neutralize what it sees as the growing menace of enemy diesel-electric submarines. Diesel-electric boats, although relatively low-tech, *are emerging as a decided threat to military assets around the world* and civilian targets in the United States, officials said."



I agree these do pose a threat.  But the contention was these could somehow destroy our nuclear subs, and that is incorrect.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Actually I've saw plans for just such an installation while I interned for Dr. Borowski back when I was in high school.  Those particular reactors weren't designed to produce weapons grade material but such a reactor wouldn't be too different.
> 
> With proper funding (which of course will never happen) we could probably have such an installation up in 15 years.



It's not the technology - it's getting it operational on the moon!    

If we made this the number one national priority, at the expense of everything else, we might be able to get such a thing going within 15 years.  And then it would be another 10 after that before anything usable would come out of the setup.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Tritium and deutirium are hardly as much of a health threat as weapons grade plutonium.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it requires two fission reactions at oposing elipitical foci on either side of the fusable component, or it requires putting the fusable material inside a hollow dome of plutonium, which requires even more fissionable material which is why I didn't bring it up.  For the uranium style trigger,  each of these must be able to achieve super-critical mass, and this requires a minimum of 1 kg per reaction (using super-weapons grade uranium), and more likely 2-3 kg each.  Putting it inside an implosion pit of a plutonium core would take perhaps two to three as much material, at a minimum, and plutonium is more dangerous when put into the atomsphere.  Plutonium is the prefered method because it will yeild a much bigger fission-fusion-fission result.  I was trying to state the minimum so I listed a uranium trigger because that would require the least weight of fissionable material.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Then there's neutron bombs detonated in the upper atmosphere to knock out missile guidance systems.  They don't need two seperate fission charges.
> 
> Pure fusion devices, as their name implies, need no fission charge at all.



Thats all well and good, except there are no pure-fusion devices.  Nuetron bombs are simply fission-fusion devices, the last fission stage of a normal thermonuke is eliminated by not containg the nuetrons in a fissionable mirror container.  This is done by making the mirror shell out of nickle and/or chromium, which will not stop nuetrons.  In an normal thermo-nuke, the mirror shell is made out of U-238 (the relatively inert waste isotopes of uranium) or mildly enriched uranium for an even nastier yeild, which fissions when bombarded with the neutrons from the fusion stage.

How, other than a fission reaction are you going to generate the million degree temperatures needed to initiate the fusion reaction?  It appears even suns cannot get started without a fission core reaction (yes this is theoretical, but I'm pretty convinced it's true).



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> The purpose of these platforms is to possess the capability of annhilating every single thing in China from space.  That's the 'defensive' role I had in mind.  Which means multiple KT's at least.



That'd require either a lot of orbital platforms containing a lot of nukes, or some very very huge nukes.  Besides the idea is absurd.  Any thrermonuclear war on that scale would end up killing us too, or at the very least making life not worth living.  Perhaps some huge neutron bombs might be used for such a purpose, but the nature of nuetron bombs makes them have much smaller yeilds than the traditional thermonukes, so it would require a lot of them.   If you want to steralize a continent, it would probably be more effective to figure out a way to use the sun to do it, or if you're willing to accept some return loss, bio-genetic weapons tailored to the population you wish to eliminate (I think these are doable but I'm not sure).



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> And yet our shuttles have ejectable cockpits do they not?  I wonder why that is...
> 
> It's called a contingency.  Obviously a sudden catastrophic failure will render the ejection option useless, but any failure which would simply prevent the rocket from entering orbit, engine misfire or failure for instance, and thus fall to back Earth would not require that the rocket impact with it's payload still intact.



Umm... the space shuttle does not have any kind of ejection system.  Too costly and deemed not likely to be effective anyway.

Any launch failure means the payload is comming back to Earth, and it's comming back pretty soon, probably within hours if not minutes.  Even satalites and other things we put in orbit do not usually have stable orbits, they require adjustment burns to keep them up.  Remember Skylab and Soyus?  Stable long term orbits require the object to be much further out.

And there is no way to make weapons grade plutonium or uranium safe in less than a very very long time.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Of course state of the art technology can now detect within seconds any rocket firing from anywhere on earth. When any missile or rocket fires, the initial burn and lift off takes up to a minute and by the time any speed is achieved, immediate counter measures unknown except to the military complex can eliminate any number of threats long before the initial ballistic missile leaves the earth's atmosphere.
> 
> It is highly unlikely that a nuclear blast would result from a missile being stopped by countermeasures and in no way effect an orbiting platform. I personally have no knowledge of these countermeasures but I do know several scientists who continually work on these problems and have been doing so for a number of years.



Well, that is speculation.  The idea that, faced with a large scale launch, we would be able to stop all enemy missiles with countermeasures seems pretty remote to me.  Even if we stopped 90% of them, 10% would be enough to wreak havok.

And all that assumes our command and control systems are still operational.  The first thing anyone would do in initiating such action would be to take down these systems, and without them countermeasures would become much much less effective.

The real threat lies in nano-molecular technology.  Something the Chineese may have a lead in.  But that's a whole nuther topic   

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Anyone else?  Anyone else care to attempt to subvert american security while pretending to care about it?  Wade?  AJ?  You guys done?



What?  What are you talking about?  

Wade.


----------



## ajwps (Aug 31, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Well, that is speculation.  The idea that, faced with a large scale launch, we would be able to stop all enemy missiles with countermeasures seems pretty remote to me.  Even if we stopped 90% of them, 10% would be enough to wreak havok.



Actually that is not the case. After having had a chance to speak to these gentlemen who are doing highly classified work and told in no uncertain terms that they could not tell me anything of substance, did find out that they are working on something like laser beams, sound waves or the like which requires only nano-seconds to destroy ABM's after launch from anywhere on the earth. 



> And all that assumes our command and control systems are still operational.  The first thing anyone would do in initiating such action would be to take down these systems, and without them countermeasures would become much much less effective.



I am certain that if I were able to glean that little bit of information, the Chinese and even the terrorist states have access to the same information. All these threats of nuclear IBM attack are I believe mainly for chest pounding and show. 

Science has made geometric leaps of knowledge over these years which are beyond anything we can imagine.



> The real threat lies in nano-molecular technology.  Something the Chineese may have a lead in.  But that's a whole nuther topic
> Wade.



I'm not as certain as you that the Chinese have made that great a leap into nano-molecular technology as the west. We haven't a clue as to what the west has already accomplished.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 31, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Actually that is not the case. After having had a chance to speak to these gentlemen who are doing highly classified work and told in no uncertain terms that they could not tell me anything of substance, did find out that they are working on something like laser beams, sound waves or the like which requires only nano-seconds to destroy ABM's after launch from anywhere on the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you do AJ---your just not sharing anymore.


----------



## MrMarbles (Aug 31, 2004)

The biggest threat to the world today isn't Chinese in nano-molecular technology, or America's attempts to put weapons in space, it is the eventual arms race that will occur. An arms race that will add tension, and cause strain on the world stage, which when flared up right will destroy us all. Why not find peaceful solutions to problems, why not stick with former agreements to not re-arm, it may be a hard thing to do, harder then pushing a red button and killing us all, but it will ensure that our kids, kids will have a place to live.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Aug 31, 2004)

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> The biggest threat to the world today isn't Chinese in nano-molecular technology, or America's attempts to put weapons in space, it is the eventual arms race that will occur. An arms race that will add tension, and cause strain on the world stage, which when flared up right will destroy us all. Why not find peaceful solutions to problems, why not stick with former agreements to not re-arm, it may be a hard thing to do, harder then pushing a red button and killing us all, but it will ensure that our kids, kids will have a place to live.



That's what all you libs said during the cold war.  I didn't come true.  You were wrong then.  You're wrong now.


----------



## ajwps (Aug 31, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I think you do AJ---your just not sharing anymore.




I do know more but this information is for sale to the highest bidder.....


----------



## DKSuddeth (Aug 31, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> I do know more but this information is for sale to the highest bidder.....



you work at the pentagon?


----------



## CSM (Aug 31, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> There are lots of ways they could knock down our satalites.  Simply firing a few nukes and detonating them in space would create an EM pulse sufficent to kill most of our satalites.
> 
> It only takes 3 such space burst nukes to kill all but the most hardened communciations systems in the continental USA, so as you can imagine, it would take relatively few to take out all but the most hardened of military sats.
> 
> ...



It is true that EMP bursts in space would devestate our commercial communications infrastrucutre, power distribution grids, and so forth. It would also severely impact many other nation's infrastructure as well. EMP is omnidirectional.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Actually that is not the case. After having had a chance to speak to these gentlemen who are doing highly classified work and told in no uncertain terms that they could not tell me anything of substance, did find out that they are working on something like laser beams, sound waves or the like which requires only nano-seconds to destroy ABM's after launch from anywhere on the earth.



"Working on" is a long way from "working".  I've worked on many high tech projects over the last 20 years.  I've worked with people who worked on projects like you discuss, and they always talk as if what they are working on in the lab will work the same way in the real world, but the fact is this is not what happens.

Do you have any idea of the amount of power involved in a laser beam type system that can reach the kind of distances you are talking about?  Do you have any idea the amount of sensor data to be processed in order to track such objects?

In general, space based laser beams of the type you are describing consist of a lense (and mirror lenses) and a nuke.  The nuke is detonated to create the energy needed for firing, and the lense is used to focus this energy into a beam for a few nanoseconds before it is vaporized.  Just how many such satalites could we deploy?  When one fires, what effect does it have on other such satalites?

Talk in terms of what does exist, not what might exist or what someone tells you they are working on, please.



			
				ajwps said:
			
		

> I am certain that if I were able to glean that little bit of information, the Chinese and even the terrorist states have access to the same information. All these threats of nuclear IBM attack are I believe mainly for chest pounding and show.



You don't have any real information.  Have you seen any technical documentation on these systems?  Have you seen any lab test results?  Any firing range tests?



			
				ajwps said:
			
		

> Science has made geometric leaps of knowledge over these years which are beyond anything we can imagine.



Actually, the rate of knowlege increase is generally shrinking each year, as it is harder and harder to make the next incrimental amount of progress.  But that is a philisophical discussion.

I can imagine lots of advanced technologies.  But I also know how much difference there is between concept and reality.  What you are talking about are concept weapons, not real weapons.



			
				ajwps said:
			
		

> I'm not as certain as you that the Chinese have made that great a leap into nano-molecular technology as the west. We haven't a clue as to what the west has already accomplished.



The general assertion is that the Chineese have at least a 5 year headstart in this technology, and that the USA should invest in it now to catch up.  But who knows... this is only what the CIA and NSA are saying.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 31, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> That's what all you libs said during the cold war.  I didn't come true.  You were wrong then.  You're wrong now.



Hmmm.. in the 20th century we came to the brink of nuclear anihilation 3 times during the cold war with the Soviets.  Now you think it is acceptable to enter a 3-way or 4-way arms race as we go into the 21st century?

Wade.


----------



## CSM (Aug 31, 2004)

We may not be that far off:

SPACE BASED LASER INTEGRATED FLIGHT EXPERIMENT

The U.S. Air Force contracted with an industry joint venture on February 08, 1999 for the Space Based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment (SBL IFX). The award constitutes the first increment of a Cost Plus Award Fee/Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract valued at approximately $2-3 billion once completed. The first increment, representing approximately $125M in funding, initiates tasks to be conducted in the first 18-24 months of the effort and immediately undertakes baseline development activities, as well as an affordability and architecture study.

The joint venture titled "Team SBL IFX" was formed on February 08, 1999, by LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, acting through Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space in Sunnyvale California, THE BOEING COMPANY, acting through its Canoga Park California offices and TRW INC., acting through its Space and Electronics Group in El Segundo California. 

The SBL IFX program is executed by the U.S. Air Forces Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in Los Angeles California for the Ballistic Missile Defense Office. The program is jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The programs objective is to conduct a research effort to advance and assess the feasibility of the Space Based Laser (SBL) concept and its technologies, culminating in an SBL ballistic missile defense (BMD) demonstration in space, as well as an assessment of non-BMD mission utility. 

The SBL IFX program will include ground, flight, and space experiments as needed to verify technologies at the component and subsystem level to support design activities for the building of a SBL IFX flight vehicle. This sub-scale flight vehicle will serve as a space test bed for the technologies. More importantly, it provides a focal point for resolving the integration challenges embodied in creating a system that unites precision optics and high energy lasers onto a lightweight spacecraft. Thorough end-to-end ground testing of the vehicle will be conducted prior to flight to create a data base for analyzing on-orbit performance. 

If the SBL IFX effort proves successful, the Department of Defense will assess the cost and utility of an operational system, as well as the threat predictions, to decide whether to actually enter the acquisition process for the development of an operational capability.

These pages created and maintained by (Last Updated 9 Feb 99):

SMC/ADE
Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC)
2420 Vela Way , Ste 1467-80
Los Angeles AFB
El Segundo CA 90245-4659

This article came from 

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news99/990209-sbl.htm


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

Here, read about it yourself:



> Another really challenging area is the so-called close-loop control of the laser, McCasland said. The beam has to project across _*hundreds of miles of space*_ and focus on a small spot, less than 2 feet in diameter, for several seconds. That much precision is a demanding thing, he said.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



As you can see, this system is not going to take out enemy missiles as they launch - they will be well above 40,000 feet and must be within a few hundred miles of the SBL platform.

These chemical reaction lasers produce megawatt power levels.  For the kind of thing you are talking about, we need GIGAWATTS!  This can only be provided by a large power station or a nuke.

Notice also that the test platform is to be 40,000 lbs, 33% bigger than the hubble, and the first space tests are at least 6 years away - which means likely deployment of such a system would start at least 12 years from now, best case.  And the function of the unit is such that it can probably only fire a few times before using up its chemical store.  This would depend on the durability of the lense/mirror system, and the amount of chemical fuel you put on the platform.  IIRC the test laser on the Boeing jet can only fire a few times times per flight, and a 747 has a 500,000 lbs payload capacity.

Also see info on the Air Force Airborne Laser at:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

This application is much more in line with what you are talking about, but of course the plane must be in the right spot at the right time to kill a missile.  And once the missile gets moving fast, it would be very hard to kill.

Wade.


----------



## ajwps (Sep 1, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> you work at the pentagon?




SATIRE DK.......


----------



## ajwps (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Here, read about it yourself: As you can see, this system is not going to take out enemy missiles as they launch - they will be well above 40,000 feet and must be within a few hundred miles of the SBL platform. These chemical reaction lasers produce megawatt power levels.  For the kind of thing you are talking about, we need GIGAWATTS!  This can only be provided by a large power station or a nuke. Notice also that the test platform is to be 40,000 lbs, 33% bigger than the hubble, and the first space tests are at least 6 years away - which means likely deployment of such a system would start at least 12 years from now, best case.  And the function of the unit is such that it can probably only fire a few times before using up its chemical store.  This would depend on the durability of the lense/mirror system, and the amount of chemical fuel you put on the platform.  IIRC the test laser on the Boeing jet can only fire a few times times per flight, and a 747 has a 500,000 lbs payload capacity.
> 
> Also see info on the Air Force Airborne Laser at:
> 
> ...



Wade do you really believe that highly classified US technology information is being disseminated to the public over the Internet? Even the little information I was able to overhear about a year or so ago was significantly different than what you have posted for public consumption.

For some reason I got the impression that some of the greatest physicists and scientists have been gathered together and given a carte blanch checkbook to develop these highly specialized weapon systems.

I can only relate it to the security surrounding the Los Alamos project during WW2. There is no way that I can personally guarantee that what I overheard is real but I was told by these scientists (I met in Los Angeles) that they could not advise me of anything. 

The following is a sample of some old Internet information that hint about such G.O.D. technology.



> The most powerful weapons utilized by the Earthforce are the Earthforce Arsenals AEGIS Heavy Particle G.O.D. cannons.
> 
> G.O.D. is the acronymous for Global Orbital Defence, because the first incarnations of this weapon, the Mk II and Mk III were conceived for the Global Orbital Defence Satellites, a powerful network of heavy satellites, placed around the Earth, and conceived early after the end of the Earth-Minbari War; the Mk I was an experimental model for the cannons of the satellites, while the MkIV, developed for the "battlemaster project", was the workbench for the shipborne family, that saw the service with the Warlock Heavy Destroyers.



http://efni.org/weapon.htm#WARLOCK

We can only hope that we are ready for any contigency.


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 1, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> SATIRE DK.......



I know, mine was a play on the FBI probe at the pentagon, Israeli spy, get it?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Hmmm.. in the 20th century we came to the brink of nuclear anihilation 3 times during the cold war with the Soviets.  Now you think it is acceptable to enter a 3-way or 4-way arms race as we go into the 21st century?
> 
> Wade.



I wish it were up to me. The race will go on.  What do you want us to do, all just accept the liberal bullcrap world order of the U.N. immediately?

You seeem so smart, but now you just sound like a lib on crack.


----------



## ajwps (Sep 1, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> I know, mine was a play on the FBI probe at the pentagon, Israeli spy, get it?




Yep I got it as well....


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 1, 2004)

Witness the weaponization of my asscrack. :nine:


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Wade do you really believe that highly classified US technology information is being disseminated to the public over the Internet? Even the little information I was able to overhear about a year or so ago was significantly different than what you have posted for public consumption.
> 
> For some reason I got the impression that some of the greatest physicists and scientists have been gathered together and given a carte blanch checkbook to develop these highly specialized weapon systems.
> 
> ...



Physics is Physics.  No I do not think lasers beyond what are described in the sources I provided are being developed, or even can be developed.  There are wavelength issues involved and there is a real power issue.  I worked with some very powerful lasers for medical purposes, and in so doing had to become knowelgable about lasers and consult with several real experts.  The only way a laser system could be made to reach further down through the atmosphere from space would be through a quantum leap in power generation technology, and if there was such a leap it would be used in many places other than obital laser systems first.

I have discussed these technologies with physicsts who have worked for defense contractors and one of my immeadiate co workers (my immeadiate superior) who'd been a head engineer at SLAC lab (Stanfords Hi E Accelerator).  I had a need for targeting of similar accuracy to what you describe, though on a different scale (the cellular level), and it turned out they didn't have anything close because there is no technology that can actually utilize such targeting.  For my purposes, range and diffusion were not a problem, but scanning time and target aquisition were.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I wish it were up to me. The race will go on.  What do you want us to do, all just accept the liberal bullcrap world order of the U.N. immediately?
> 
> You seeem so smart, but now you just sound like a lib on crack.



If I'm in favor of exploring all options, not just the military option, I must be a "lib on crack" huh?

I think if we can keep offensive weapons out of space we should do so.  Why?  Because once such weapons move to space, it provides a short cut for the Chineese and others to gain some level of parity.  Working from terrestrial platforms only is harder, so we can more easily maintain superiority.

We have a treaty in place banning both offensive and ABM systems in space.  We should think very carefully before being the ones to break that treaty.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 1, 2004)

Wade,  you strike me as a well educated appeaser, but an appeaser nonetheless.  Is this true?


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

I don't believe so RWA.  However, I believe sometimes there is a place for diplomacy and negotiation, as long as you get what you need out of it, and do not give up what you cannot give up.

You strike me as a right-wing hawk who believes the military solution is the only solution.  Is this true?

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I don't believe so RWA.  However, I believe sometimes there is a place for diplomacy and negotiation, as long as you get what you need out of it, and do not give up what you cannot give up.
> 
> You strike me as a right-wing hawk who believes the military solution is the only solution.  Is this true?
> 
> Wade.



Diplomacy doesn't work on liars, and murderers.  It just seems your many and varied points on why space based defense won't work are just a cover for an ideological, as opposed to technical, opposition.

You do seem to know a lot of stuff though.  I'll give you that.


----------



## ajwps (Sep 1, 2004)

You know Wade you surprise me. You have made a very remarkable absolute statement: *"No I do not think lasers beyond what are described in the sources I provided are being developed, or even can be developed."*

I love people using words like never, forever, or even can be and always. You have effectively said what the ancients said prior to the invention of the wheel or modern man said before knowledge of the energy within a simple atom. Do you really believe that no covert governmental program exists which is working on your seemingly impossible quantum leap in power generation technology? Do you think that the defense contractor physicists you talked with knew everything that is being developed as we speak?

Yes there would be many more practical applications to such power creation and generation technology but that does not preclude the fact that such solutions are being developed now. You might be surprised to learn that scanning time and target aquisition are not as unsolvable as you might think.       

Is there really a limit to anything that exists now?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> If I'm in favor of exploring all options, not just the military option, I must be a "lib on crack" huh?
> 
> I think if we can keep offensive weapons out of space we should do so.  Why?  Because once such weapons move to space, it provides a short cut for the Chineese and others to gain some level of parity.


How, because they'll be able to study our stations with high powered telescopes and satellites.  We'll wrap them in some sort of cloaking and jamming stuff I'm sure.  I don't have the schematics, but give me  a minute.


> Working from terrestrial platforms only is harder, so we can more easily maintain superiority.


For both of us, right?  Still parity.


> We have a treaty in place banning both offensive and ABM systems in space.  We should think very carefully before being the ones to break that treaty.
> 
> Wade.



No.  We should break it now. The future of our world depends on it.


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> You know Wade you surprise me. You have made a very remarkable absolute statement: *"No I do not think lasers beyond what are described in the sources I provided are being developed, or even can be developed."*
> 
> I love people using words like never, forever, or even can be and always. You have effectively said what the ancients said prior to the invention of the wheel or modern man said before knowledge of the energy within a simple atom. Do you really believe that no covert governmental program exists which is working on your seemingly impossible quantum leap in power generation technology? Do you think that the defense contractor physicists you talked with knew everything that is being developed as we speak?
> 
> ...



Read the articles I posted earlier.  One of them explains the issues involved in creating coherant beams of light, and why at a given power level it is impossible to go beyond a certain point.  Many things can be done, but the nature of light cannot be changed.  The only way to get longer ranges than discussed would be to increase the power level by many orders of magnitude.  It's physics, and it's well known physics.

Wade.


----------



## ajwps (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Read the articles I posted earlier.  One of them explains the issues involved in creating coherant beams of light, and why at a given power level it is impossible to go beyond a certain point.  Many things can be done, but the nature of light cannot be changed.  The only way to get longer ranges than discussed would be to increase the power level by many orders of magnitude.  It's physics, and it's well known physics.
> 
> Wade.



Nice articles you posted. You use another one of my favorite words in the world of physics (IMPOSSIBLE). 

Actually the nature of light can and has being experimentally changed. The Einstein-Poldalsky-Rosen Experiment (the EPR Experiment) has been described by several authors.    

Herbert describes the situation of two quantum particles which are once together flying apart and being measured at two distant locations. There exists a connection between the particles such that the fact of an observation of particle A is relayed to the distant particle B, it such a manner that the communication, does not diminish with distance, cannot be shielded, and *travels faster than light.*  The fact of the two particles once being together is sufficient to mingle the particles phases (quantum phase entanglement).  This results in the effect being non-local (whereas all ordinary light-speed-limited forces are referred to as local).   

Subsequently, Irish physicist John Stewart Bell showed that all conceivable models of Reality must incorporate this instant connection.  Bells Theorem is a mathematical proof that reality must be non-local.  This result is fundamentally important!  Connective Physics, and the Mathematical Theory (i.e. the proof) behind The Fifth Element all point to the same conclusion: local reality cannot be isolated from the universe.   

Another view of the EPR concept is to conceive of a pair of two particles traveling in opposite directions, and required by the Pauli Exclusion Principle to have opposite spins. (The Pauli Exclusion Principle may be considered to be absolutely essential to any viable theory of quantum mechanics, and in fact was the key link in which Einstein, et al hoped to disprove the quantum theory.  It just didnt work out too well -- the EPR Experiment has become a major supporting milestone for Quantum Physics.     

When the spin of one particle is unilaterally changed, an astounding experimental result is that the second particles spin immediately flips of its own accord (and thus maintains the validity of the Pauli Exclusion Principle).  Furthermore, the means by which the information of the first spin flip is transferred to the second particle (so that it too can flip) is information which is required to travel faster than the speed of light. 

Your well known physics are being understood in ways never imagined before.


----------



## ajwps (Sep 1, 2004)

Wade the following article is a declassified site detailing a mobile laser designed for the same purposes as you previously described. I suspect the technology that you find impossible is progressing somewhere.



> Mobile / Tactical High Energy Laser
> (M-THEL) Technology Demonstration Program
> Developer: Northrop Grumman Corp.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> No because there is no coasting time required.



Once a typical ICBM ends it's powered ascent phase and begins to coast, it is traveling 15,000 mph, is 50 miles above the surface of the earth, and is about 25 minutes away from impact.  No realistic amount of additional acceleration is going to propel a platform interceptor 35,000 more miles in the next half hour that it would take the standard ICBM to reach it's target.  It would instantly have to be going 70,000 mph.

Cassini was cruising a few k below 70,000 mph.  It took a 45 minute burn to reach that speed once it was already in orbit and going over 4,000 mph.



> Smuggling bombs into the country is not an easy trick, there are lots of ways these can be seen by our equipment, and hiding them from that equipment requires large, conspicuous containers.



Diplomatic pouches would solve that problem nicely.



> Yes, you pretty much do. That's the whole point of the design.



Individual missile silo operators do not have independent authority to fire.  Without clearance they cannot fire at all.



> But the contention was these could somehow destroy our nuclear subs, and that is incorrect.



Why?  Are our bigger, slower, and louder ballistic missile submarines somehow impervious to the torpedos of smaller, faster, quieter boats?  



> If we made this the number one national priority, at the expense of everything else, we might be able to get such a thing going within 15 years. And then it would be another 10 after that before anything usable would come out of the setup.



You're just wrong.  I've worked we these guys.  I've read their papers.  There are already organizations that have worked out the logistics to minute detail.  It is in their estimation that a lunar base could be constructed with the first lunar crew arriving at an operational base *eight years* after funding was approved.

http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/koelle/lbq/LBQ2-01.pdf



			
				wade said:
			
		

> No, it requires two fission reactions at oposing elipitical foci on either side of the fusable component, or it requires putting the fusable material inside a hollow dome of plutonium,






> All thermonuclear weapons existing in the world today appear to be based on a scheme usually called the Teller-Ulam design
> 
> The Teller-Ulam fusion bomb described so far is called *a two stage bomb*. The *fission trigger* (the first stage) compresses the *fusion capsule* (the second stage). As powerful as the trigger is, there is a limit to how large a capsule it can compress in the brief time available. If a still bigger bomb is desired, then the explosion of the fusion secondary can be used to compress and explode a larger third stage. Each stage can be 10-100 times the size of the previous stage. The 50 Mt bomb mentioned above was a three stage weapon.



http://www.geocities.com/atlas_missile/warhead.html

The additional uranium needn't have a high density to be fissile.  The neutrons created from the fusion explosion induce fission absent critical mass.



			
				wade said:
			
		

> I was trying to state the minimum so I listed a uranium trigger because that would require the least weight of fissionable material.



A fusion warhead is a more devastating weapon than a fission warhead of the same weight.  A pure fission warhead of equal power to any fusion warhead would be a heavier and larger warhead would it not?  A pure fission warhead would have more plutonium in it than a fusion warhead of comparable power.  Do you deny this?  Or was I right when I said:



> By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.






			
				wade said:
			
		

> Thats all well and good, except there are no pure-fusion devices.



Not that we know of.



			
				wade said:
			
		

> That'd require either a lot of orbital platforms containing a lot of nukes, or some very very huge nukes. Besides the idea is absurd. Any thrermonuclear war on that scale would end up killing us too



Are you reading anything I write?  It's called a deterrent.  The original statement I made was: even after we were destroyed we could fire back, and therefore the fear to attack would be too great.  Of course it would destroy us, *if* there still was an us.  In the worst case scenario that would require it's use, there would not be.  The whole point is to demonstrate that there is no gain to attacking us.



			
				wade said:
			
		

> or if you're willing to accept some return loss, bio-genetic weapons tailored to the population you wish to eliminate (I think these are doable but I'm not sure).



That, I would imagine, we already have at least plans for.




			
				wade said:
			
		

> Umm... the space shuttle does not have any kind of ejection system. Too costly and deemed not likely to be effective anyway.



You know, this perplexes me.  I was certain when I was watching the Challenger explode someone made a comment about possibly recovering the ejected cockpit module.  After looking this up and finding we don't in fact have an ejectable cockpit, as you pointed out, I can't for the life of me fathom what the hell that man must have been talking about.  Perhaps it was just ignorant wishful thinking.  You learn something new everyday.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 1, 2004)

The main arguments against a space based weapons systems posited seem to be:

it's too hard.

it's too expensive.

it would take to long.

then they'd do it too.



Nothing is too hard to attempt.  
Our safety has no price limit.  
If it would take a long time, that is more an argument for haste than delay.
Let them try, we thrive on competition.  It's what made this country great.



			
				RWA said:
			
		

> That's what all you libs said during the cold war.



Precisely what I was thinking.  I swear it sounds as if he dragged that bit out of a 20 year-old protest pamphlet against Reagan putting Pershing missiles in West Germany.  I can almost see that inflatable whale with the slogan "Save the Humans".


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Nice articles you posted. You use another one of my favorite words in the world of physics (IMPOSSIBLE).
> 
> Actually the nature of light can and has being experimentally changed. The Einstein-Poldalsky-Rosen Experiment (the EPR Experiment) has been described by several authors.
> 
> ...



Yes I know the polarization connection theory, which I believe implies that there is only one particle of light.  And this is still a theory, the experiment is quite possibly flawed.  This is actually part of my theory of the universe and God, but that's another topic.  If you want to get off topic into physics, I will explain why I believe there is only one particle in the universe, how I believe gravity works (there is only one force of gravity, and it pushes things away from one another rather than attracting them together), why there is no "dark matter" and the current "super-string" theory is bunk.    

But, that is Quantum physics, and outside the realm of practical application.  The fact is that under todays practical science, light has a wavelength and it is not possible to create truely coherant beams of light, and this is a limiting factor in lasers.  Maybe some day things will change, but we are talking the probably talking the distant future.  And if such change does take place in the near future the ramifications are so big that none of these issues we are discussing are meaningful anyway.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 2, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Once a typical ICBM ends it's powered ascent phase and begins to coast, it is traveling 15,000 mph, is 50 miles above the surface of the earth, and is about 25 minutes away from impact.  No realistic amount of additional acceleration is going to propel a platform interceptor 35,000 more miles in the next half hour that it would take the standard ICBM to reach it's target.  It would instantly have to be going 70,000 mph.
> 
> Cassini was cruising a few k below 70,000 mph.  It took a 45 minute burn to reach that speed once it was already in orbit and going over 4,000 mph.



But the missile starts slowing immeadiately after the boost phase ends.  It then decelerates until the end of the post-boost phase which carries it from approximately 50 miles to 800 miles above the earth before it enters the mid-course phase.  Plotting and achieving an intercept to such a position is not unreasonable if the the ABM is fired shortly after the ICBM.  ABM warheads are smaller than ICBM's and require no re-entry sheilding.  Therefore they are much lighter and can affordably be made to accelerate much faster.




			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Diplomatic pouches would solve that problem nicely.



Hmmm.. I have never seen or heard of a diplomatic pouch large enough to hold a full size refidgerator.  Anything smaller than that (and that's probably not big enough), should stand out like a sore thumb to our detection equipment.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Individual missile silo operators do not have independent authority to fire.  Without clearance they cannot fire at all.



So? I don't understand why you think this is relevant.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Why?  Are our bigger, slower, and louder ballistic missile submarines somehow impervious to the torpedos of smaller, faster, quieter boats?



I do not believe their detection systems are sufficiently advanced to overcome our advantage, and it will be a very long time before they are.  Perhaps our submarine fleet needs to be improved.  Should be easy to do, we can buy some real solid expertise from the former Soviet Union.




			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> You're just wrong.  I've worked we these guys.  I've read their papers.  There are already organizations that have worked out the logistics to minute detail.  It is in their estimation that a lunar base could be constructed with the first lunar crew arriving at an operational base *eight years* after funding was approved.
> 
> http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/koelle/lbq/LBQ2-01.pdf



Hmm.. first off this puts the first viable operational of such a station at 2019, this is in line with what I already posted.  Second, this proposal assumes 90% of the O2 required for the station can be obtained from moon bases sources, which is an unknown.  Third, to work as you propose raw nuclear material has to be transported to the moon, this would be very expensive given the figures proposed.

Getting the first crew up there and getting to a point of productivity are two very different things.  This whole thing is based on the idea that such a base could produce rocket fuel, which is probably not unreasonable IFF moon based sources of water can be located (or perhaps other chemicals).  But to assume moon based uranium will be locatable and mineable within any reasonable period of time is wishful thinking.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> The additional uranium needn't have a high density to be fissile.  The neutrons created from the fusion explosion induce fission absent critical mass.



Well, sort of.  As I said it does not need to be weapons grade.  In fact, it does not even need to be U-237, it can be U-238, but for a bigger bang mildly enriched U-237 is used.  But if it is not realatively dense then it is likely to be blown away without fissioning, and the fission products are likely to be less intense.  Just because it is not heavily enriched does not mean it is not heavy.  In any case, you want pretty pure uranium (237 or 238), and that is heavy stuff.  Don't confuse the quality of the material (in terms of weapons or non-weapons grade) with the weight of the material.  To be "less dense" it would have to be less pure, and you don't want that!



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> A fusion warhead is a more devastating weapon than a fission warhead of the same weight.  A pure fission warhead of equal power to any fusion warhead would be a heavier and larger warhead would it not?  A pure fission warhead would have more plutonium in it than a fusion warhead of comparable power.  Do you deny this?  Or was I right when I said:
> 
> 
> 
> > By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.



Hmmm. You are over simplifying the whole thing.  Let me try to explain:

First lets consider pure fission bombs.  To achieve a super-critical fission reaction (nuclear blast) requires a minimum amount of fissionable material be brought to sufficient density in proper geometry to create a blast before the material melts.  This is done either by slamming two componets together (uranium style bomb) or by imploding a spehrical shaped component to achieve super-critical mass.  In either case there is a minimum amount of material that will achieve the desired effect, this is true whether the device is used alone as a weapon or to be a trigger for a multi-stage explosion.  There is also a maximum size for such a core, if it gets bigger than this, much of the material will fail to fission, being blown away by fissioning of other parts of the reaction.  So for pure fission weapons, there is a minium size of a few kilos of uranium or a bit more of plutonium, and there is a maximum size which, I believe is about 80kg (don't hold me to this, I'm not confirming this and it's been years since I took the physics class where I learned this stuff).  The thing to keep in mind is that the chain reaction is caused by free neutrons, and these are achieved through the decay of the uranium or plutonium, and they determine the rate of the reaction.  Highly enriched uranium or plutonium is spittiong out more neutrons per second than less enriched material, which is why the material needs to be enriched to "weapons grade".

Now, lets consider a fission-fusion bomb.  This bomb consists of the bomb listed above, but in the center of it (using either two uranium or a hollow sphere of plutonium) is a material containing a lot of Hydrogen (there are a number of options).  The fusion reaction takes hydrogen (each with one proton) and converts it to heavier elements (deuterium, triterium, helium-3, helium-4, etc..).  Lets just consider the simplest reaction, 2 hydrogens becoming one deuterium.  Each hydrogen atom has one proton, but the deuterium nucleus that is formed has two protons emits an antielectron and a neutrino. Each stage of fusion emits neutrinos.  This can increase the yeild of the bomb up to about 10 fold, with most of the additional yeild being in the form of neutrinos.

Now lets consider the fission-fusion-fission bomb.  This is the same as above, except the whole thing is contained inside a uranium shell.  Because of the very high number of neutinos comming out of the fusion bart of the above reaction, the material does not need to be weapons grade (see U-238 and U-237 discussion above), only relatively pure.  Unlike the first fission stage, quite a bit of material can be involved, because the neutrino blast is nearly instantaneous, huge by comparison with the pre-fission neutrino emmision levels of the fissionable material, and there is much less concern for perfection of geometry and no concern for pre-reaction deformation from melting prior to chain reaction.  This stage can enhance the output of the bomb by 100-1000 fold or even more.

What is important to understand is that while the fission fuel (uranium or plutonium) is very dense, the fusion fuel is not.  So going by weight is over-simplifying the whole thing.  To get maximum effect for the total weight and size of the warhead, you really want to use the 3 stage bomb.  Also, the nature of the blast from the fission reaction is much different than that from the fusion reaction, generating not only large amounts of neutrino radiation, but also large amounts of beta and gamma radiation, which in most cases are more damaging.  This can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on application.

In any case, all the figures I gave were for simple 1 stage devices or for the triggers for 2 stage devices.  I never even considered adding in the outer shell to make a full on thermo nuclear warhead, specifically to minimize the amount of dangerous material being considered for launch   :teeth: 




			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Wade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, again you are reaching into science fiction.  Any means of generating the necessary temperatures is, using any technology even close to what we have today, going to require a huge device by comparison with a fission trigger.  I suppose several of these chemical lasers, all focused on the fusable material, might be able to cause a fusion reaction.  But it is impracticle for a deliverable weapon.




			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Are you reading anything I write?  It's called a deterrent.  The original statement I made was: even after we were destroyed we could fire back, and therefore the fear to attack would be too great.  Of course it would destroy us, *if* there still was an us.  In the worst case scenario that would require it's use, there would not be.  The whole point is to demonstrate that there is no gain to attacking us.



If that is all you want to do, the answer is simple.  We simply take a good number of our existing H-Bombs and pile them in the same location right in the center of the USA, deep within the earth.  Then we say "if you strike, we will blow you up too".   :alco: 

Come on, it's silly.  For any nuclear weapons systems to be worth the cost of building, they must offer the ability to deliver a fatal blow to the enemy, while recieving a less than fatal blow in return.  I really think our existing ballistic weapons systems are sufficently protected to ensure a very large return strike capability against any enemy attack in the forseeable future.  Any space based systems we put up should therefore be defensive in nature, and we should only consider such a course if we determine terrestrial based ABM systems cannot do the job.

Wade


----------



## wade (Sep 2, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> The main arguments against a space based weapons systems posited seem to be:
> 
> it's too hard.
> 
> ...



Did you ever read the story of what happend to the people of Easter Island?

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 2, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Wade the following article is a declassified site detailing a mobile laser designed for the same purposes as you previously described. I suspect the technology that you find impossible is progressing somewhere.



Not at all.  The system described is fully within the constraints I have said are possible.  Look at the ranges involved, that's the issue.  What you are saying is possible requires extending the range several fold, which is impossible without a revolution in physics.  We would need to develop some way of focusing light w/o using a lense.  As far as I'm aware, the only alternative is gravity - something we understand far less well than light, and which I suspect (based upon my own theory of gravity) cannot be utilized for such a purpose on the kind of small scale we would need.

Please show me where this system is firing a beam more than a few hundred miles?  In fact I think it is firing a beam less than 20 miles, probably less than 10 miles! Just take a look at the target types - "Rockets/Artillery/Mortars (RAM), cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles".  That's a far cry from taking out a medium range ballistic missile, let alone an ICBM!

Wade.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> But the missile starts slowing immeadiately after the boost phase ends.  It then decelerates until



_Et cetera, et cetera_, only to end with the phrase:



> Therefore they are much lighter and can affordably be made to accelerate much faster.



Prove we can construct an interceptor missile that can go from launch to within strike range of geosynchronous satellite faster than say a submarine strike, launch to detonation.  Because that's the point, all your extraneous information aside.



> Hmmm.. I have never seen or heard of a diplomatic pouch large enough to hold a full size refidgerator.



So?  Wether you've heard of them or not, diplomatic pouches range in size from briefcases to truck trailers.  How about a mainframe server with classified information on it?  Those are about the size of a refrigerator.



> I don't understand why you think this is relevant.



I felt it was rather obvious, and I don't have the time to explain it to you right now.




> I do not believe



Well, let's base our security priorities on your beliefs then shall we.



> Hmm.. first off this puts the first viable operational of such a station at 2019,



So they want to put a crew on a base that won't be operational for 7 more years?  Why don't you try to read it again.



> As I said it does not need to be weapons grade.



What you said was it had to be of critical mass.  It does not.



> Hmmm. You are over simplifying the whole thing.  Let me try to explain:



No.  You're needlessly overcomplicating it as some sort of subterfuge.  Just answer the questions.



> Well, again you are reaching into science fiction.



It's fine when you speculate, but speculation is strictly off limits for me?  Why precisely is that?



> If that is all you want to do, the answer is simple.  We simply take a good number of our existing H-Bombs and pile them in the same location right in the center of the USA, deep within the earth.



Same problem with all other land based missiles which was the whole point of the platform to begin with.  A point you evidently missed.

Why am I not surprised....


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> _Et cetera, et cetera_, only to end with the phrase:
> 
> Prove we can construct an interceptor missile that can go from launch to within strike range of geosynchronous satellite faster than say a submarine strike, launch to detonation.  Because that's the point, all your extraneous information aside.



But sub-orbital launches cannot intercept such missiles either.  Lasers cannot reach down far enough into the atmousphere.  So what's the point?  These kinds of weapons need to be intercepted by something much closer to the point of launch or they are not going to be stopped.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> So?  Wether you've heard of them or not, diplomatic pouches range in size from briefcases to truck trailers.  How about a mainframe server with classified information on it?  Those are about the size of a refrigerator.



Any such "pouch" would be subject to direct scrutiny.  From close up, there is no hiding nuclear contents.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> So they want to put a crew on a base that won't be operational for 7 more years?  Why don't you try to read it again.



That is far from operational... ie: producing weapons grade material.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> What you said was it had to be of critical mass.  It does not.



I've lost whatever you're replying too.  Try to be coherant.  I'll take a guess though...

I never said the outer shell had to be of critical mass, but in fact the whole point of the bomb is that this material would be more than what is needed to achieve super-critical mass, which is limited for a direct fission reaction and is the real reason an H-Bomb has such a big bang.  It'd be pointless to just put a small amount of fissionable material in the outer shell.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> No.  You're needlessly overcomplicating it as some sort of subterfuge.  Just answer the questions.



Some questions don't have simple answers.




			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> It's fine when you speculate, but speculation is strictly off limits for me?  Why precisely is that?



Speculate all you want, but please try to keep the speculation within the bounds of reality.  When you suggest for instance, that a workable "pure fusion" bomb can be made, espeically one in a deliverable form, when there is no evidence that it can be done, and convincing evidence that even Stars need a fission reaction to get the fusion reaction started, that is science fiction.  Cold fusion has been proven to be a farce.  I'm open to any new ideas about how it might be done - but so far there is nothing even close to a viable theory - the math never adds up.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Same problem with all other land based missiles which was the whole point of the platform to begin with.  A point you evidently missed.
> 
> Why am I not surprised....



Are you seriously saying you think that such a stockpile of nukes, burried many thousands of feet beneath the surface of the Earth, protected by Granite, could be successfuly knocked out before it could be detonated?

Are you seriously saying that any nation in the world today or in the forseeable future has even close to the capacity to neutralize our existing land based ICBM systems?

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

Wade, your obvious negativism regarding technology combined with your seeming overconfidence in our current invulnerability reveals your agenda: to render america apathetic.  Well I'm here to mess up your day and reveal you to the world!

Wade is antiamerican!


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Wade, your obvious negativism regarding technology combined with your seeming overconfidence in our current invulnerability reveals your agenda: to render america apathetic.  Well I'm here to mess up your day and reveal you to the world!
> 
> Wade is antiamerican!



Avenger -

Have you ever worked in a high-tech weapons lab?  Have you ever worked in a high-tech medical lab?  Have you ever developed high-tech survielience and communications equipment?  Do you have any experiance to base your assertions upon?

you're an idiot and you don't even understand what it is to be an American.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Avenger -
> 
> Have you ever worked in a high-tech weapons lab?  Have you ever worked in a high-tech medical lab?  Have you ever developed high-tech survielience and communications equipment?  Do you have any experiance to base your assertions upon?
> 
> you're an idiot and you don't even understand what it is to be an American.



Have you? (in a capacity other than a solderer doing work on a bench)

I usually don't point out spelling errors as we all make them from time to time.  But your spelling is ATROCIOUS and yet you claim to be be some scientist working on "high-tech" projects.  Did you really graduate with an "EE" degree with such horrific spelling?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Avenger -
> 
> Have you ever worked in a high-tech weapons lab?  Have you ever worked in a high-tech medical lab?  Have you ever developed high-tech survielience and communications equipment?  Do you have any experiance to base your assertions upon?
> 
> you're an idiot and you don't even understand what it is to be an American.



No.  I work off gut instinct and heuristic models of human archetypes.  I know you better than you know yourself.  Your middle name is Myron.


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Have you? (in a capacity other than a solderer doing work on a bench)
> 
> I usually don't point out spelling errors as we all make them from time to time.  But your spelling is ATROCIOUS and yet you claim to be be some scientist working on "high-tech" projects.  Did you really graduate with an "EE" degree with such horrific spelling?



CS not EE, amoung others. Asside from soldering wire rap connectors to fit a DIP adaptor to a QFP socket, I have almost no soldiering experiance at all.  And I'm not a Scientist - I have often worked with Scientists but I'm not one myself.

I do not worry about spelling on this board.  Having programmed many hundreds of thousands of lines of code, I can no longer easily see a spelling error, as we use misspelled words all the time intentionally. And I've always had a spell checker for any written work I've done.  If I worried about spelling, I'd not have time to even bother with this board - in fact I don't have time for it anymore as it is.  I have a geo-thermal project to study for.

BTW: I have a hard time balancing my checkbook by hand too - too much HEX math.

I made telephone bugs in the mid 80's, was contracted to a major Def. Contractor in the late 80's to do pattern recognition work, was lead sw engineer on a med. research project at Duke U. in the very late 80's and early 90's, did some work for Ford after that, then became lead programmer for a company that made secure comms equipment.   Several of these jobs afforded me the opportunity to travel to many of the nations we are talking about.  Since that time I've been contracting with more consumer oriented companies.  Also at the University I was floated between many different projects - they called us slave labor for a reason.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> CS not EE, amoung others. Asside from soldering wire rap connectors to fit a DIP adaptor to a QFP socket, I have almost no soldiering experiance at all.  And I'm not a Scientist - I have often worked with Scientists but I'm not one myself.
> 
> I do not worry about spelling on this board.  Having programmed many hundreds of thousands of lines of code, I can no longer easily see a spelling error, as we use misspelled words all the time intentionally. And I've always had a spell checker for any written work I've done.  If I worried about spelling, I'd not have time to even bother with this board - in fact I don't have time for it anymore as it is.  I have a geo-thermal project to study for.
> 
> ...



Gosh everyone.  Look how big and important wade is.   Pretty smart for a sub par intellectual pygmy.


----------



## Modu$OperanDi (Sep 7, 2004)

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> If the Chinese want us to give up a system that would give the USA an overwhelming advantage for about the next 30 to 50 years, then they had better be prepared to pony up something in exchange.




You fuckin people make me sick with this U.S. domination horseshit. American culture has become so extremely distorted. This war on terror is only speeding us up on our one way ticket to self-destruction. How about focusing on the next 300 years instead of the next 30.


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> CS not EE, amoung others. Asside from soldering wire rap connectors to fit a DIP adaptor to a QFP socket, I have almost no soldiering experiance at all.  And I'm not a Scientist - I have often worked with Scientists but I'm not one myself.
> 
> I do not worry about spelling on this board.  Having programmed many hundreds of thousands of lines of code, I can no longer easily see a spelling error, as we use misspelled words all the time intentionally. And I've always had a spell checker for any written work I've done.  If I worried about spelling, I'd not have time to even bother with this board - in fact I don't have time for it anymore as it is.  I have a geo-thermal project to study for.
> 
> ...



I'm such an insignificant slime. how can I ever live now?  

  hey wade    snap out of it. I've known too many degreed engineers that look at me and say :duh: when I ask them if they ever heard of the patriot act. Trying to list your 'credentials' thinking you'll have us looking at your opinions in a better light only makes you look like an


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

Modu$OperanDi said:
			
		

> You fuckin people make me sick with this U.S. domination horseshit. American culture has become so extremely distorted. This war on terror is only speeding us up on our one way ticket to self-destruction. How about focusing on the next 300 years instead of the next 30.




People are always happy with our strength when it comes to saving their asses.  Aren't they? People love all the money they make when we keep foreign investments safe all around the globe, don't they?  You need to pull your head out of your ass.  Neoliberalism aka (socialism combined with an irrational hatred of america) has failed.  France and Germany are in the toilet ecopolitically.  Our way is proving superior.  Deal with it, numbnuts.


----------



## Modu$OperanDi (Sep 7, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> People are always happy with our strength when it comes to saving their asses.  Aren't they? People love all the money they make when we keep foreign investments safe all around the globe, don't they?  You need to pull your head out of your ass.  Neoliberalism aka (socialism combined with an irrational hatred of america) has failed.  France and Germany are in the toilet ecopolitically.  Our way is proving superior.  Deal with it, numbnuts.




Well since you didn't dispute that the war on terror is speeding us up to self-destruction, i guess you recognize that. Since you didn't say anything about focusing on the far future instead of the near, i guess that means you just wanted to state what big nuts republicans have. I don't give a fuck how happy people are with us, i would appreciate a mere 10 percent focus on the far future up from about .1 percent.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

Modu$OperanDi said:
			
		

> Well since you didn't dispute that the war on terror is speeding us up to self-destruction, i guess you recognize that. Since you didn't say anything about focusing on the far future instead of the near, i guess that means you just wanted to state what big nuts republicans have. I don't give a fuck how happy people are with us, i would appreciate a mere 10 percent focus on the far future up from about .1 percent.



You're fantasizing that I agree with any of your assinine points.  I agree with none of them.  Your boy John Kerry doesn't even know what he thinks from moment to moment.  He's a laughable buffoon.  Tell us one thing your retard candidate will do and how he will do it.  Let's get a taste of HIS vision for america.


----------



## Modu$OperanDi (Sep 7, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're fantasizing that I agree with any of your assinine points.  I agree with none of them.  Your boy John Kerry doesn't even know what he thinks from moment to moment.  He's a laughable buffoon.  Tell us one thing your retard candidate will do and how he will do it.  Let's get a taste of HIS vision for america.



JESUS! American debate is really fucking disgusting. You must see red all day. I try and talk intelligently about a few points and you ignore them, then move on to another insult. It's amazing how quick people catch onto trends. I find it amazing that the entirety of the human race cannot agree we need to focus on our long-term future as a SPECIES about a thousand times over.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

Modu$OperanDi said:
			
		

> JESUS! American debate is really fucking disgusting. You must see red all day. I try and talk intelligently about a few points and you ignore them, then move on to another insult. It's amazing how quick people catch onto trends. I find it amazing that the entirety of the human race cannot agree we need to focus on our long-term future as a SPECIES about a thousand times over.



Keep your indignance to yourself.   

So I take it you cannot think of one concrete thing kerry would do.

You want vision?  Your boy can't keep a story straight for a three day period.

Bush has never wavered in his commitment to fight terrorism, promote job growth through tax cuts, improve health care with tort reform and individual savings accounts.  on and on.  solid position after solid position.  Kerry is a visionless joke of  a man.

W stands for wrong?  That's like a sesame street slogan.  That really sucks.


----------



## Modu$OperanDi (Sep 7, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Keep your indignance to yourself.
> 
> So I take it you cannot think of one concrete thing kerry would do.
> 
> ...




This is not how a conversation works... i'll explain it. I started up this conversation, I had comments which you didn't address, then diverted. How it works is: First you respond to what I say without changing topics, then you either see if i have anything else to add, or set a new topic.   

I haven't said anything about Kerry in this convo. and you assume i'm riding his cock. Well I like to try and look at things objectively. Kerry has tons of faults and things about him that piss me off. But when you add them all up, Bush has way more. Simple.

Learn how to fucking converse like an adult... well... nevermind. Learn how to converse like a teenager, they seem to have it down better than the adults these days.


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> I'm such an insignificant slime. how can I ever live now?
> 
> hey wade    snap out of it. I've known too many degreed engineers that look at me and say :duh: when I ask them if they ever heard of the patriot act. Trying to list your 'credentials' thinking you'll have us looking at your opinions in a better light only makes you look like an



Not doing that at all, but when challenged I'll respond.

The "Patriot Act" is perhaps the least patriotic thing our Congress has ever approved.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

Modu$OperanDi said:
			
		

> This is not how a conversation works... i'll explain it. I started up this conversation, I had comments which you didn't address, then diverted. How it works is: First you respond to what I say without changing topics, then you either see if i have anything else to add, or set a new topic.
> 
> I haven't said anything about Kerry in this convo. and you assume i'm riding his cock. Well I like to try and look at things objectively. Kerry has tons of faults and things about him that piss me off. But when you add them all up, Bush has way more. Simple.
> 
> Learn how to fucking converse like an adult... well... nevermind. Learn how to converse like a teenager, they seem to have it down better than the adults these days.



You were wondering about vision.  Bush has it in spades.  Kerry cannot even clearly articulate the past or present, let alone the future.  Simple.


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You were wondering about vision.  Bush has it in spades.  Kerry cannot even clearly articulate the past or present, let alone the future.  Simple.



I agree Bush does have a vision for the future.  In that vision they are crowning a member of the Bush family King of America.  Simple.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 7, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I agree Bush does have a vision for the future.  In that vision they are crowning a member of the Bush family King of America.  Simple.



This was lame even for you, wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

May be lame, but unfortunately it's not far from the truth.


----------



## wade (Sep 7, 2004)

George W. Bush: Words Speak Louder Than Actions

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/pla...osid=/multimedia/indy04/stewart/jon_9027.html


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 8, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> May be lame, but unfortunately it's not far from the truth.



Yes.  Bush's goal is to create a monarchy for his family.  You're off your rocker.  Statements like this render your entire persona untrustworthy.


----------



## ajwps (Sep 8, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> George W. Bush: Words Speak Louder Than Actions



Check out the following site where you will see the upper left film clip entitled 'black Bush' if you want to see Mr. Bush from a minority view. It is very funny....  If John Flipflop Kerry wins in November, forget about the major cities of the United States surviving for more than a month or two.

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/chappellesshow/showclips.jhtml?startIndex=13


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yes.  Bush's goal is to create a monarchy for his family.  You're off your rocker.  Statements like this render your entire persona untrustworthy.



And if you cannot understand that was meant as a joke then you have rendered your intelligence suspect.... again!  Stop being an idiot.

Bush does not actually want to be King.  He just wants to firmly establish his class as seperate and above that of the great majority of America.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 9, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Check out the following site where you will see the upper left film clip entitled 'black Bush' if you want to see Mr. Bush from a minority view. It is very funny....  If John Flipflop Kerry wins in November, forget about the major cities of the United States surviving for more than a month or two.
> 
> http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/chappellesshow/showclips.jhtml?startIndex=13



Ooooo... lets all be afraid!  If Kerry wins the USA has less than 3 months to survive!

 :shocked: 

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> And if you cannot understand that was meant as a joke then you have rendered your intelligence suspect.... again!  Stop being an idiot.
> 
> Bush does not actually want to be King.  He just wants to firmly establish his class as seperate and above that of the great majority of America.
> 
> Wade.



Typically jokes have some element of humor.  Note to wade:  Sarcasm doesn't work in print without .

And libs want to establish their own class of government employee bureaucrats as the ruling elite.  At least corporate bosses must be effective.  Libs just have to be the best at manipulating idiots with emotional appeals to their base, childish emotions of envy.


----------



## ajwps (Sep 9, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Ooooo... lets all be afraid!  If Kerry wins the USA has less than 3 months to survive! Wade.




Brother you just said a mouthfull.


----------

