• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

"…fully armed and operational Death Star…"

A

Anonymous

Guest
Couldn't think of a better subject title ;)
Anyways, is there any reason that the proposed 'son of Star Wars' system couldn't fire on ground targets?

-
"I've never managed original sin, but I've done innovative."
- anon
 
So, a hypothetical situation prsents itself :
One of Bush's spy-sats spots bin Laden in the desert. None of Bush's troops are anywhere near bin's position. So Bush gets on the phone to 'son of Star Wars' control and five minutes later bin is toast. :eek:
 
Except considering the accuracy of the American military's aim, they'd probably destroy a big town a hundred miles away from there. With a bit of luck, they'll even manage to kill their own. :D
 
It was my impression that it was an ICBM aimed at another ICBM, with the intention of destroying the Nuke in Space.....Is this not correct?
 
That was the principle of the 'Patriot'[?] missle - which apparently failed miserably against scuds in Iraq - not the 'son of Star Wars' which is supposed to employ laser weaponry.
 
Sally---I have to admit that the little guy skeeves me out a bit......:blah:


So is it possible to fire a high powered laser from space to the earth?
Are there lazers capable of destruction like that?
Would it be heat? Or would it be radiation?
 
The original SDI was fraught with difficulties. The principle, of course, was space based satellites that knocked out the enemy warheads using either lasers or projectiles. Unfortunately, lasers could be deflected if the Soviets were forward thinking enough to paint the warheads silver. Railguns were another possibility, which accelerates something like a depleted uranium slug to incredible speeds through a coil of plasma. Unfortunately, handling such an incredibly high temperature gas gave material scientists major headaches.
As for lasers, and Death Rays, these again have major problems. The problem is, even the most powerful laser loses power over distance due to the natural convection currents in the air which needs to be compensated for in order to keep the laser focused. Even then, the power required is such that you have to keep the laser on the target for a particular length of time before it burns the hole required. I recall seeing a test with a death ray mounted on a plane, but the equipment required as just too damn heavy.
Son of Star Wars has its own problems. The patriot missile system was a good propaganda weapon but little else. As someone said once, its principle is like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet. And then there are decoy warheads which the ICBM could deploy to confuse the system. Personally, I still don't buy it as a useful defence against rogue states - launching a limited attack on the US would guarantee its own destruction.
 
I thought railguns accelerated the projectile via a coil of magnetic material? So was this plasma super-conductive or… ? Intrigued…
 
Sally said:
With a bit of luck, they'll even manage to kill their own. :D

You are a real sad case Sally ... real sad.:(

Your average America GI Joe is no different than any young lad from any place else. They will have family, friends and are conscious of trying to do the right thing. When they succeed, you gain the right to utter such crap ... if they fail then you will not enjoy such freedom.

They are out there putting their young lives on the line. War is the last resort. You remind me of the type of people we see on TV news reports cheering when a Yanky plane is shot down, yet grief stricken when a terrorist is shot dead.

All life is sacred ... even yours! And if I had to live under a foreign power I'd take the USA any day against any run by religious fanatics.

Mr Kite
 
It has to be said, it's safer fighting against the US than fighting alongside them. 'Blue on Blue' seems to be their core tactical doctrine.
 
Friendly fire.....

My Grandad fought in France in the second world war, and he always told me, that when the Germans fired, he kept his head down. When he fired, the Germans kept their heads down. But, when the Americans fired, everyone kept their heads down. ]

It's ironic that more American soldiers died through crashes and friendly fire in Afghanistan than through clashes with Taleban or Al Queda forces.......just saying 'cos it kind of proves the point doesn't it ???

Moggadon
 
No, it just shows how crappy the Taliban are at fighting in the military sense.
 
Of course, many of the Taliban fighters didn't want to be fighting at all. Forced conscription, often at gunpoint, was common practice. Doesn't make for a very committed army.

Nonny
 
Mr Kite, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean that I wanted American soldiers to die, I was referring to friendly fire, as do a few other posts.

I realise that the terms 'with any luck' weren't very well chosen, and my only excuse is that it was a direct translation from a French expression which obviously means something totally different to the English equivalent.

Aside from that, I am annoyed that you intepreted those three little words as meaning that I am an anti-American, pro-terrorism 'sad case'.
I realise it's hard to determine whether a post is ironic or not, but you could at least have given me the benefit of the doubt and simply posted something along the lines of 'I don't think that remark was appropriate' rather than having a go at me.



PS. KingSlender: what does 'skeeve' mean?
 
Back
Top