5 ms·

The days of mutually assured destruction is actually over. In the time needed for the ICBMs to reach targets on another continent is enough time to intercept th

The days of mutually assured destruction is actually over. In the time needed for the ICBMs to reach targets on another continent is enough time to intercept those missiles. Obviously neighbours like Finland and Ukraine on the otherhand are problematic. I hope the best for them. Many missile defense systems have been worked on, sattelites with high powered lasers, planes with high powered lasers, intercepting missiles like Israel's irondome, phalanx anti missile systems, and many others. No idea how effective but we shall see if we need them. Canada is probably kicking itself pretty hardcore for not accepting the USA's offer to join missile defense. You can read how dumb we are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defence_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defence_in_Ca... lol or not.. Cold Lake Alberta is probably pretty quiet right now. My city is tiny and probably not a target. If Toronto is hit, I'm jumping in my car and driving to help anyway I can. I recommend we all do the same, a pair of hands is enough to help.

walrus01 5y ago
Satellites with high powered lasers are a fantasy that don't exist right now. The converted Boeing 747 airborne laser was a colossal failure and would have only been able to target a missile nearby in its boost/launch phase. It's now dismantled. You think you can send fighters to gun down an icbm MIRV in its re-entry phase? Seriously?
- ukraineally 5y ago
  >Satellites with high powered lasers are a fantasy that don't exist right now. You need approximately a 5KW laser to do the job. Virtually all satellites have this much power available. So this 'fantasy' is that you don't believe these sattelites are in orbit? It's quite obvious that this wouldn't be public knowledge. I admit I have no idea. >The converted Boeing 747 airborne laser was a colossal failure and would have only been able to target a missile nearby in its boost/launch phase. It's now dismantled. So to be clear, an ICBM flies at like mach 15-30. So it quickly leaves range of the 747. It was indeed scrapped, but was it? Did missile defence agency in around 2009 just decide they don't know what to do and havent done anything since? They received 9 billion $ in 2021 and this sentence is literally all we know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Futures_Command#GPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Futures_Com... Is it simply top secret or did they utterly fail in their job? >You think you can send fighters to gun down an icbm MIRV in its re-entry phase? Seriously? If all you have is that, like canada, then that's what you have to do. It doesn't matter how probable the success is.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >You need approximately a 5KW laser to do the job. Virtually all satellites have this much power available. "have this much power available" is one part. "having laser system to use that power" is another. If they couldn't get it to work with a laser mounted on top of a 747, what makes you think they can get it to work on a satellite?
    - svnt 5y ago
      I am not an expert, but lack of atmospheric losses could be a major factor in deploying a system with practical levels of coverage. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790005436/downloads/19790005436.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790005436/downloads/19...
- peteradio 5y ago
  It seems like the most obvious point of interception is as the missiles are leaving the silo. In a heightened response wouldn't it be effective to maintain supersonic flight patterns within range of targets to deploy interceptors with the requisite time window?

walrus01 5y ago

Satellites with high powered lasers are a fantasy that don't exist right now. The converted Boeing 747 airborne laser was a colossal failure and would have only been able to target a missile nearby in its boost/launch phase. It's now dismantled. You think you can send fighters to gun down an icbm MIRV in its re-entry phase? Seriously?

ukraineally 5y ago
>Satellites with high powered lasers are a fantasy that don't exist right now. You need approximately a 5KW laser to do the job. Virtually all satellites have this much power available. So this 'fantasy' is that you don't believe these sattelites are in orbit? It's quite obvious that this wouldn't be public knowledge. I admit I have no idea. >The converted Boeing 747 airborne laser was a colossal failure and would have only been able to target a missile nearby in its boost/launch phase. It's now dismantled. So to be clear, an ICBM flies at like mach 15-30. So it quickly leaves range of the 747. It was indeed scrapped, but was it? Did missile defence agency in around 2009 just decide they don't know what to do and havent done anything since? They received 9 billion $ in 2021 and this sentence is literally all we know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Futures_Command#GPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Futures_Com... Is it simply top secret or did they utterly fail in their job? >You think you can send fighters to gun down an icbm MIRV in its re-entry phase? Seriously? If all you have is that, like canada, then that's what you have to do. It doesn't matter how probable the success is.
- gruez 5y ago
  >You need approximately a 5KW laser to do the job. Virtually all satellites have this much power available. "have this much power available" is one part. "having laser system to use that power" is another. If they couldn't get it to work with a laser mounted on top of a 747, what makes you think they can get it to work on a satellite?
  - svnt 5y ago
    I am not an expert, but lack of atmospheric losses could be a major factor in deploying a system with practical levels of coverage. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790005436/downloads/19790005436.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790005436/downloads/19...
peteradio 5y ago
It seems like the most obvious point of interception is as the missiles are leaving the silo. In a heightened response wouldn't it be effective to maintain supersonic flight patterns within range of targets to deploy interceptors with the requisite time window?