The Trident Debate

Originally Posted by philipMac

Just... sort of FYI, bit of a derail, but I wouldnt be laughing too hard at the lasers / energy beams in space thing.
The US military, has by their own admission, done more than just test these weapons in labs. And they also admit to being behind the curve with these things. And they also hold some of Tesla's (the progenitor of these sorts of weapons) state secret 60 odd years after his death.

Just sayin is all.

In a lab is one thing. Keeping the laser focused on the right part of a missile moving at speeds upwards of the tens of thousands of feet per second, is another.

IMO, the only realistic way to do this would be to use another, faster, projectile to take out the nuke before it actually arms the warheads (they only arm at the very last few seconds before detonation).

Either that, or several supercomputers tracking each missile to align lasers to the nose cone. How long until the missles get "intelligent" and "wiggle" to avoid laser contact?

Sorry to derail some more

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Chief

Ed wrote

You are a corny, naive, narrow minded, ultra right wing, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant bigot. Now can you answer the question?

Any more of that and you'll be in cooler with your baseball and catcher's mit...

Pack it in, Consider yourself warned.

Fizz

[arc123]

Ed wrote
And my religious beliefs (which rather presumes that I have some) are what?


I answer your question (correclty as you admit yourself), and now you get all narky with me.

I wasn't asking for a justification, just an explanation of how you thought your contrasting beliefs were compatible. If you don't feel you can answer the feel free to tell me to grow up [/quote]

[arc123]

Oh come on Fizz - Ed admits that I was pretty accurate. So the truth is against forum rules now???


Ok, ok, ok - I retract the bits that were not quite accurate then.

Originally Posted by Chief

Ed wrote
And my religious beliefs (which rather presumes that I have some) are what?


I answer your question (correclty as you admit yourself), and now you get all narky with me.

I wasn't asking for a justification, just an explanation of how you thought your contrasting beliefs were compatible. If you don't feel you can answer the feel free to tell me to grow up

IMO (apologies admins/mods), but you cannot answer that kind of question about someone you do not know. The answer provided was merely a guess, and as Ed says, was partially correct.

If you are unable to accurately define one element, how can the argument be put that either element even has a relationship to the other? (In plain english, if you can't accurately state someone's beliefs, how can you suggest they are conflicting or compatible)... You can't.

Again, IMO.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by The Basket

North Korea may have warheads but they have probably chemical and biological weapons too.

After WWII, Japan did follow a pacifist defence but now they have a superpower and a rogue state on their doorstep. Both have WMD abilities. And therefore my even have to re-arm for possible war.

Britian needs a nuclear defence, whether a submarine based one is the answer should be the debate

Yes, they almost certainly do have chemical and biological weapons, which adds another 2 weapons to the list of things that nuclear weapons can't stop Japan's looking to rearm, but they're committed to nonproliferation. I suspect being nuked might spoil a man's appetite for the things. But then, I also think they're perfectly pragmatic about the usefulness of strategic nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Baph

In a lab is one thing. Keeping the laser focused on the right part of a missile moving at speeds upwards of the tens of thousands of feet per second, is another.

IMO, the only realistic way to do this would be to use another, faster, projectile to take out the nuke before it actually arms the warheads (they only arm at the very last few seconds before detonation).

Either that, or several supercomputers tracking each missile to align lasers to the nose cone. How long until the missles get "intelligent" and "wiggle" to avoid laser contact?

Sorry to derail some more

No Baph, I said they have done more than test these in labs.
Quite a lot more it seems. They have these weapons in production. The one they tell you about has three separate laser systems, feeding into one computer.
One laser is a wide type which is used to locate very fast moving objects, another bounces off the moving object and is used to correct for atmospheric distortion, and the third jumps into life for about a second and dumps a load of energy into the moving object.
They have at least three types of this weapon, mobile, aircraft mounted, and non mobile. The only problem with them is the size of the battery they need to tow about to power them.

More or less.

These things are actually existing, in the field, and are being openly admitted to now. They are also admitting that the Soviets were much more advanced than they were. (Similar to rocketry.)

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Baph

Either that, or several supercomputers tracking each missile to align lasers to the nose cone. How long until the missles get "intelligent" and "wiggle" to avoid laser contact?

Harder to wiggle a missile than a laser/crews weapon... Momentum and suchlike.

They had a test rig for an honest-to-god laser cannon at my uni,Heriot Watt. Never made it work, since it was all a scam to get military funding that they could use for research that had commercial benefits (blue lasers), but it was pretty odd walking down that corner towards the PC lab- lots of sirens and warning labels Instead of building a specific lab, they just planned to shoot it down a corridor. Which'd be full of students, probably

The classic orbital response for your exit-reentry MIRV was a bucket of ball bearings fired the other way by chemical rocket... Just a question of opposed velocity.

[arc123]

FAO Baph:

- Ed said it was

fairly accurate

- so you're wrong on that one.

-

The answer provided was merely a guess

- wrong again

The rest of your post is thus null and void due to the above inaccuracies - not to mention incomprehensible (apart from your 'plain English' translation - why didn't you write that to start with?)

Originally Posted by Chief

FAO Baph:

- Ed said it was

- so you're wrong on that one.

-

- wrong again

The rest of your post is thus null and void due to the above inaccuracies - not to mention incomprehensible (apart from your 'plain English' translation - why didn't you write that to start with?)

All I have to say to that is simply ""

Pretty much as Ed, I'm not going to be drawn into a trolling argument.

philipMac, the specs of things like the AC-X reads like a movie plot. Forgive me for being sceptical, but I'll believe technology like that exists when it's seen in the field.