quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

Terrific- a fiscal conservative is proposing to spend gazillions of dollars to protect us from something that isn't much of a threat.

quote:

The Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser Testbed, (formerly Airborne Laser) weapons system is a megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) mounted inside a modified Boeing 747-400F. It is primarily designed as a missile defense system to destroy tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs), while in boost phase. The aircraft was designated YAL-1A in 2004 by the U.S. Department of Defense.[1]

The YAL-1 with a low-power laser was test-fired in flight, at an airborne target in 2007.[2] A high-energy laser was used to intercept a test target in January 2010,[3] and the following month, successfully destroyed two test missiles.[4]

The Air Force has not requested any further funds for the Airborne Laser and Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable.”

source

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Rule some say Star wars was a deliberate ruse...another cold war weapon designed to bankrupt the Soviet Union...it worked.

Butch

Which is strange, as the Soviets did have some fairly effective looking antiballistic sites around a few cities that were closed down by the SALT talks.

As for effective deterrence, can anybody cite an example of a laser managing to destroy a missile that hadn't been pre stressed first?

And I'd be very interested to hear when the last time America protected Europe was. Being expected to help fight your wars in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't made public transport in Spain or the UK any safer, put it that way...

quote:

In January 2010, the high-energy laser was used in-flight, to intercept, although not destroy, a test Missile Alternative Range Target Instrument (MARTI) in the boost phase of flight.[3] On February 11, 2010 in a test at Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range off the central California coast, the system successfully destroyed a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile. Less than an hour after that first missile had been destroyed, a second missile—a solid-fuel design—had, as announced by the MDA, been "successfully engaged", but not destroyed, and that all test criteria had been met. The MDA announcement also noted that ABL had destroyed an identical solid-fuel missile in flight eight days earlier.[17] However, it was later reported in the preeminent industry magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology that whereas the first Feb. 11 engagement required 50% less dwell time than expected to destroy the missile, the second engagement less than an hour later on the solid-fuel missile had to be cut short before it could be destroyed because of a “beam misalignment” problem. source

quote:

Nothing is going to produce jobs in this country until the shortcuts to wealth that we initiated are eliminated.