Laser Cannons --> Military --> Spam

PvK · #1 November 4th, 2003, 08:51 AM

Defending against a few ICBM's is a very different problem from defending against a country with an armageddon-sized nuclear arsenal. If your nation has enough nuclear firepower to destroy the world many times over, no matter where they detonate their warheads, and you were considering nonsense such as ICBM warfare to destroy a continental-sized enemy, you were really talking about a flamethrower battle on the Hindenburg - mutual assured destruction. Against such a threat, lasers aren't much help, because if someone is threatening to destroy the whole planet, they can still do so by detonating their arsenal in their own silos.

Against "emerging nuclear powers", laser ABM might be useful. During the cold war, I was really worried about the idea of Reagan's "Star Wars" concept to try to make the Soviet arsenal obsolete. Imagine if the Soviets had been slowly developing an effective ABM system...

Humans... sigh...

PvK

[ November 04, 2003, 06:56: Message edited by: PvK ]

Erax · #2 November 4th, 2003, 10:36 AM

Actually, the whole point of "star wars" was to throw lots of money into defense, which the Soviets wouldn't be able to match without breaking their already overstretched economy. It wasn't necessary for the program to work as such, only to look as it might work.

deccan · #3 November 4th, 2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Erax:
Actually, the whole point of "star wars" was to throw lots of money into defense, which the Soviets wouldn't be able to match without breaking their already overstretched economy. It wasn't necessary for the program to work as such, only to look as it might work.

A letter to The Economist published in its issue of 24th October 2003:

Quote:

SIR - I had the occasion to speak confidentially with Edward Teller during Ronald Reagan's second term. As he was credited with authorship of he Strategic Defence Initiative ("Star Wars"), I asked him how it came about. He said that Reagan fashioned a bubble with his hands and said, "I wish I could put a protective shield over the country - to keep evil people from doing us harm." Teller told the president his vision was possible.

I asked Teller if it would work. "Now? No," he said and I asked why. He gave a bored shrug: "The technology doesn't exist." This was an astounding admission from the chief architect of Star Wars. Though it failed it is still credited with hastening the downfall of the Soviet Union. Teller displayed a profound lack of interest in the morality of launching a massive programme he knew would not work, and an overriding interest in the morality of defeating America's enemies.

GRANT STOCKDALE
Washington, DC

[ November 04, 2003, 10:11: Message edited by: deccan ]

Ran-Taro · #4 November 4th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Keep in mind that a lot of modern technology was pioneered by the military as a means to kill people more effectively...

Like what for example?

I'm not being argumentative BTW - I would genuinely like to know some examples of this(plus it's generally reassuring to hear some sort of example when people make sweeping statements).

geoschmo · #5 November 4th, 2003, 01:28 PM

Re: The Teller interview in the Economist. What exactly is inherantly immoral about spending money on technology that does not currently exsist? That's what research and development is all about. At the start of the Manhattan project noone knew for sure the bomb would work. The same with the airplane, tanks, guns, any piece of weapons technology. And any civilian technology also for that matter.

The Stratregic Defense Initiative was a massive program to advance the technology needed to achieve a missle shield. Debate the morality of having a missle shield if you want, but once the decision is made to develop one, saying it's imorral to spend the money to research it is a bit odd.

Cyrien · #6 November 4th, 2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Keep in mind that a lot of modern technology was pioneered by the military as a means to kill people more effectively...

Like what for example?

I'm not being argumentative BTW - I would genuinely like to know some examples of this(plus it's generally reassuring to hear some sort of example when people make sweeping statements).

There is a TV show in the US on the History Channel now called "Tactical to Practical" that deals directly with this issue.

A few that I know of.

The Microwave Oven - by product of radar experiments
Radar - WW2. Yah.
GPS - Modern. For military location. Now it is everywhere.
Sonar - WW1. Hydrophone to find the first U-boats. Now try and find a modern fishing vessel that doesn't have it.
Jet Engines - WW2.
Kevlar - Saved many military lives and many police officer lives.
Night and Infrared Imaging technology - Oh yah. All over now. First the military though for obvious reasons.
The Computer - Some of the earliest computers and major computer breakthroughs were there to calculate the trajectories of ICBMs and calculate where they would hit. Also crypobreakers etc.
Nuclear Power - I shouldn't have to say more on this one.
Satellite Recon and Imaging - All military are first. Now lots of civilian firms that use this technology.
Cryptography - Military for wartime use to civilian, specifically for the computer in modern life.
Submarine (increasingly more uses for this vessel being foud in the civilian sector)

Just to name a few.
In fact most militarily advanced nations have programs or departments within the military that exist specifically to analyze the feasibility of releasing specific technologies to the public after having been developed for the military. These same agencies also have the role of analyzing developing civilian technologies and determining if they can be put to use for the military.

http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/keyfacts/f...sification.htm

I had one for the US but I closed the page and now I can't remember the combination of searches that got me to it.

[ November 04, 2003, 14:49: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

geoschmo · #7 November 4th, 2003, 05:01 PM

Good list Cyrien. Two minor nitpicks.

The original mechanical and electromechanical computers were actually being used to calulate artillery trajectories before the invention of ICBMs. But the principle is correct.

And nuclear power is one on your list that I believe the early research was in the area of power generation and later was harnessed for it's explosive potential. I could be wrong about that though. Maybe the early reactors were just about making enough useable material to build a bomb.