Airborne Laser Blasts Off

the end is near

thats probably a good thing to have, when we're on the edge of destrution with Russia. i dont have anything against the russians, but seem to be teetering back and forth between peace and war. so in case our good 'ol friends decide we need to be taught some manners and launch a barraige of nuclear warheads through the upper stratosphere, we will need some sort of defense. the US is not ready for a near thermo-nuclear war, we have no troops, (their all in IRAQ), and no international support. nobody wants to get involved with THAT war!!

Russian and Iranian nuclear weapon proliferation increasingly reverberates around the world. We desperately need to strive for protection from the growing threat of the horrendous horror of nuclear attack. When one bomb can melt a large city and a hand full of nuclear bombs can cripple an entire nation we need to remain steadfast to continue laser national defense. Recent testing successes prove that the new laser technology to counter nuclear missile threats - is quickly becoming a reality. Nothing in the world can be conceived as threatening to democracy and to humanity as threat of nuclear attack.

I will have to disagree with i_am_a_nerd and Uncle Sam. Both of you brought up Russia (and Iran, but I will get to that later) without a true reason why.

I dont mean to be offensive, but nerd, you do seem ignorant on the issue. Russia is not a poor, third world country. Though they have... less than reputable ways of keeping track of their nuclear arsenal, they aren't careless by tossing a few nuclear warheads in anyway they want. Them as well as almost the entire international community KNOWS that current nuclear weapons don't just hurt the targets, but the entire world.
The nuclear gasses and dust from one nuclear weapon, catches the jet stream and travels the globe. That mixed with the tremendous amount of nuclear debris that goes into the upper atmosphere. Those combined could reach areas (lets say for example if D.C. is bombed) into Western Europe in very deadly amounts. Russia isn't that stupid.

North Korea, has an A-Bomb comparable to the Hiroshima blast. 1/1000th the power in the US arsenal from a single warhead. And that's ONLY an atom bomb. Our Collection is of THERMONUCLEAR warheads.

As for Iran, they aren't exactly the threat we think they are. Yet. They may or may not get the technology soon. And though they may be FAR LESS than trustworthy with the technology. Something tells me they would be so proud of their achievement they would probably keep it all to themselves. That would also include strict security by the Iranian government from its own terrorists. The Iranian name would be smeared by letting such weapons out of its reach.

We may not need this laser technology now. But it's definitely a good thing to have in the future. Especially if any of the circumstances I stated above become true.

The problem with counting on such a system to handle a "barrage" of nuclear missiles is that the laser will have limits on its range imposed by atmospheric conditions, not to mention the fact that the missiles themselves can easily be made more resistant to laser fire by spinning the boosters (so as to avoid pinpoint heating of any single surface for the time it would take to burn through the booster) or by relatively cheap reflective coatings on the skin of the booster. So you're basically spending a lot of money on a complex defensive system that is countered by less expensive means. Not very cost effective strategy, to say the least.

Furthermore, introducing "missile defense" technology to the stategic weapons mix encourages an arms race, because the other side may view your defensive weapons as a means to deal with limited retaliation when you feel emboldened enough to launch a first strike. Certainly, we would like to think that the U.S. would not attempt this, but Russia and other nations may not be so willing to trust our good intentions to use anti-missile weapons only for defense.

Finally, missile defense strategy overlooks the most obvious means that any minor nuclear power would use to attack -- sneaking a weapon in to your country and detonating it at the chosen site. I'm not opposed into researching defensive technologies like this, but I just think you shouldn't get overconfident about the potential protection they offer, or overlook the possible destabilizing effect they have on international relations between nuclear-armed nations.

the ability to lock on to multiple with its targeting system and lock on with the "big" laser and destroy the missile within moments of launch could prove most valuable with non nuclear threats, especially when protecting finite areas and known hot spots, in Israel perhaps?

The Russian's take all our missile defence defensively for some reason? Wouldn't it be pathetic if world war three happend because of of our ability to defend ourselves?