Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (13763)	11/16/2004 5:11:35 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I am not as confident. The mathematics of laser targeting is remarkably simpler than ballistic targeting. On the other hand, laser has this issue with power consumption and long distances. Which is to say the material science advances will take at least as long as the mathematical advances needed for ballistic targeting. I suspect the eventual proposed solution will be a mix of the two so there will be some pork for everyone.

To: Yogizuna who wrote (13763)	11/16/2004 5:11:46 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Howdy Festus, Would you be Fillmore's cousin? :) Re: The defense system that will eventually take over is laser based, not missile battery based, and I would be very surprised if it were not extremely reliable. Tell me about the power requirements. Tell me about how you'll deal with MIRVs. Tell me about target acquisition. Then tell me how the NMCC, NORAD and the FAA simply couldn't find a Boeing 757 (American Flight 77) purportedly flying 300 miles from Ohio to the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. If you can answer that one, I'd be very appreciative. Either the military has vastly greater capabilities than were demonstrated on 9/11, or else your laser-missile defense is a foolish pipedream. Which is it?