Wouldn't there be a next logic step in development?

Submitted by Joe (United States), May 7, 2008 at 01:56

If the missiles zig-zag, then don't use a rocket to take them out - use another atomic (with the nasty EMP being unavoidable) or an energy weapon where line-of-sight is all that matters. I hope this makes sense to the engineers out there.

While portable versions of these countermeasures aren't very practical, it is possible to have fixed LOS defenses in addition to the submarines and rockets. Gauss cannons aren't exactly science fiction - the navy wants them to replace the dangerous powder kegs they have just sitting in a conveniently risky location during an entire battle where the enemy figures out fast where to aim their own weapons. Lasers are not the cure-all-end-all that Reagan said they are, but missiles can only reflect/ablate so much energy. Even a pinhole leak in a missile in the right location could in theory cause it to destabilize and even rip apart.

Think of the graphic example when the second NASA Space Shuttle exploded. An antimissle system that was designed not to heat the missle's front casing but to cause leaks would be much more effective I'd imagine! The idea of making a beam of the type of radiation emitted when a nuke explodes is a wet dream of weapons designers everywhere, but seems unlikely to be more than science fiction for a long time.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".