Well, I notice my old friend Thor - renamed, naturally - on the list. Check the attack sequence from Footfall.

It's more than possible to deploy Thor. I don't know enough about the technicalities of laser platforms. But Thor ought to have been developed a long time ago.

The hyperventilation on the part of the Times is boring. What do they want, everyone to stand around holding hands and singing kumbayah?

Kymbayah? Are you kidding.

That song mentions God! We can't have that at the New York Times. Start singing Kumbayah and the next thing you know the theocrats are storming the castle.

Times & Histeria. Amazing how easily these two words blend together. Kinda like chocolate and raisins.

Space-based weapons platforms are a critical part of the national defense infrastructure, but I still think that their main value will come in terms of providing defensive rather than offensive capability. The "brilliant pebbles" concept is still the best way I can think of to intercept inbound MIRVs from an inbound ballistic missile.

But even for offense, it can provide for a devastating but non-nuclear weapon: the kinetic "mass driver" weapon where a large inert mass is rammed into a target point. Think of something the size of a cinderblock, made out of titanium or depleted uranium, fired from an orbital platform at a bunker or underground lab. This object would strike the target at orbital velocities, converting much of its own mass to energy and thus destructive potential. You'd get the destructive force and penetration of a nuclear weapon without the side-effects.

Our aviation forces have already used this "mass driver" concept on a smaller scale by dropping large concrete "bombs" on safehouses and hideouts in thickly populated areas. You pulverize the target itself without submitting everyone around to the blast effects of a conventional bomb.

But even for offense, it can provide for a devastating but non-nuclear weapon: the kinetic "mass driver" weapon where a large inert mass is rammed into a target point. Think of something the size of a cinderblock, made out of titanium or depleted uranium, fired from an orbital platform at a bunker or underground lab. This object would strike the target at orbital velocities, converting much of its own mass to energy and thus destructive potential. You'd get the destructive force and penetration of a nuclear weapon without the side-effects.

That's covered in the Times article and Defense Tech takes issue with the feasibility of the system.

I have no idea which of you is closer to right.

Ace, check your gmail.

Slu: the Left has rewritten the song, ages ago. It takes a few tries, but eventually you pick up the correct rhythm for:

Kumbayah, my deity, deities, metaphysical-earth-spirit or life-force, kumbayah...

Alternatively, you can just sub "Allah" for "Lord", because as you well know it's fine as long as you're not implying a Judeo-Christian basis.

I have no idea which of you is closer to right.

The mass wouldn't have to be very big, either -- something the size of a softball delivered at orbital velocity (~1.7 km/sec) would deliver more energy to the target than a conventional weapon many times that size, but the blast effects would be reduced. You'd concentrate more energy on the target and less on dispersal effects.

I'd say the most difficult part of the mass-driver weapon is the targeting computation, but it's not notably more complicated than systems we have in use today on the ground (the Aegis weapons platform is a good example, and it's been in use for nearly twenty years).