Directed Energy Weapon Downs Ballistic Missile

A**masher writes "In a test off the Califoria coast late last night, Boeing's Airborne Laser successfully destroyed a sub-launched ballistic missile. 'This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform,' reported the Missile Defense Agency. It should be noted that destroying a liquid-fueled ballistic missile is generally considered easier than killing a solid-fueled equivalent due to the relative fragility of the fueling and other systems."

Comments

Summary Inaccurate

[hermitian]

There was not mention of the missile being "sub-launched." That would also be quite difficult for the US since they have no liquid fueled Submarine Launched Balistic Missles (SLBMs). They are all solid fueled.

One thing I'll never understand about this

[MikeRT]

is why people get so concerned about "wasting money" trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete. Money spent on the missile defense systems is not even remotely analogous to the waste like when some senator tries to create 10k new jobs by ramming 500 new planes down the Air Force's throat or something like that. Most of it is trial and error, basic science and engineering, trying to figure out how to defeat a threat that could, in one blow, murder millions of Americans.

MAD got us to this point, but the knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors. A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier, harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers. For state actors, that's a non-starter unless they get really lucky or have a death wish like the Iranian ruling class seems to have with their badly veiled threats against at least one nuclear power (Israel).

Re:Don't be interested yet, headline is incorrect

[LWATCDR]

Wow you are so wrong and yet you where modded up to a five.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/12/boeing-747-destroys-ballistic-missile-with-laser/?s=t5
Including pictures of the shootdown.

Just amazing....

Re:Obvious vulnerability is....obvious?

[couchslug]

"An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch."

That's why strategic aircraft assets are stationed on appropriately guarded bases with sufficient folks to fend off intruders, just as they were in the good old days of Strategic Air Command (back before TAC ate the rest of the Air Force).

The enemy planning a missile attack that ABL is designed to mitigate isn't a major nation-state, but a smaller foe with fewer missiles. As nuclear proliferation among fanatic regimes ensures smallish nuclear war will happen, defensive preparations make sense. Likewise, ABL that can defeat rockets and other conventional systems will have use providing top cover against them.

Re:Popcorn and other practical applications

[donaggie03]

Perhaps GP has a flawed view of U.S. foreign policy, but his point remains. Regardless of whether a war or battle or offensive is justified or morally right, once the U.S. military decides on a target then any casualties besides that target and anyone defending that target are considered collateral damage. Once again, whatever the justification of a military strike, they still wish to reduce collateral damage as much as possible. This may be due to a sense of morality in the top brass, or it could be because they realize collateral damage tarnishes America's image and actually pushes more people to the dark side. Or maybe it is a little of both . .

Either way, your arguments do not change the fact that American military policy is to reduce collateral damage, and that these weapon advances help in that regard.