You build the SDI.

What's to stop someone else from building their own SDI to take out your SDI system? And so on.

I find it hard to believe that laser systems are in some way inferior to conventional chemical-based munitions. — Wallows

There is a navy-based laser system which the Navy tried to upgrade to 180 kW last year, which was what the 600 million in last year's DOD budget was for. With it they made a power delivery system of 18 drawers with 480 Li-Ion phosphate cells. What they do is, charge them continuously with 450 kW, then burn them for a single-use shot by sudden short circuiting. Three sets of 18 steel battery drawers, each the size of a small bank vault, are themselves encased in thermal insulation to stop the sudden discharge from setting the ship on fire. That creates a brief 150KW pulse, strong enough to make people look away, and to burn out small sensors.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/us-navy-will-fire-150-kilowatt-laser-on.html

Here is a drawing from 2016 showing the design concept.

What's to stop someone else from building their own SDI to take out your SDI system? And so on. — Terrapin Station

Huu? It's a defence measure, not an offensive one. And, the more SDI's the better for peace and prosperity.

Yeah, I was wondering how they intend to power these weapons by air-combat defense systems... Secrets unknown.

Huu? It's a defence measure, not an offensive one. And, the more SDI's the better for peace and prosperity. — Wallows

This is not difficult:

You build and launch a set of satellites equipped with laser weapons that can shoot missiles down so that they're not a danger.

Someone else builds their own set of satellites equipped with laser weapons that can shoot your satellites down so they're not a danger to their missiles (or their satellites, and so that your missiles are not a danger to them, as well).

You mean a surprise attack? I don't see how this is possible to do without giving away your intentions and spoiling the whole plan by doing that. Essentially, you attack first, you lose.

You build and launch a set of satellites equipped with laser weapons that can shoot missiles down so that they're not a danger. — Terrapin Station

the problem is, laser weapons that can shoot missiles down need something the size of three small bank vaults, and then all they can do is burn sensors out. It's not possible to put something into orbit even that powerful, or even in a ground vehicle. They have to be carried on warships.

You mean a surprise attack? — Wallows

What in the world? Where did I say anything that suggested "surprise"?

Empty your mind. Read what I wrote above slowly.

the problem is, laser weapons that can shoot missiles down need something the size of three small bank vaults, and then call they can do is burn sensors out. It's not possible to put something into orbit even that powerful, or even in a ground vehicle. Currently they have to be carried on warships. — ernestm

I wasn't commenting on whether an SDI system is currently feasible. Just the logic of it being an advantage given the assumption of present or future feasibility.

What in the world? Where did I say anything that suggested "surprise"?

Empty your mind. Read what I wrote above slowly. — Terrapin Station

Your concept doesn't really make sense if you care about my opinion.

First, you would need offensive laser systems to shoot down your enemy defense system.

Second, you couldn't do this without giving away your intentions about the purpose of your "defense" system.

Third, you would need to invade the domain of your enemy territory due to the fact that no nation would allow your satellites to operate above their territory.

So on so forth.

Yeah, I was wondering how they intend to power these weapons by air-combat defense systems... Secrets unknown. — Wallows

It's not an unknown secret. Its impossible. Its an old bluff that's already run out of steam. the USA has submarine based nuclear Tridents, ground-based nuclear Tridents, and next year, air-based nuclear bunker busters. The SDI bluff can no longer stop nuclear weapons. Neither can 'MAD.' they are both outmoded concepts.

I wasn't commenting on whether an SDI system is currently feasible. Just the logic of it being an advantage given the assumption of present or future feasibility. — Terrapin Station

Because Trident defense systems can also mount a nuclear attack, and an SDI system could not stop B2s dropping B61-12s, the 'logic' on whether to pursue SDI as a defense system has become null and void.

Your concept doesn't really make sense if you care about my opinion.

First, you would need offensive laser systems to shoot down your enemy defense system.

Second, you couldn't do this without giving away your intentions about the purpose of your "defense" system.

Third, you would need to invade the domain of your enemy due to the fact that no nation would allow your satellites to operate above your territory. — Wallows

Whether anything is called "offensive" or "defensive" doesn't really matter here. That's simply a relative matter of positioning. But it doesn't matter.

There are plenty of satellites that are not in geosynchronous orbit.

Because Trident defense systems can also mount a nuclear attack, and an SDI system could not stop B2s dropping B61-12s, the 'logic' on whether to pursue SDI as a defense system has become null and void. — ernestm

Tell Wallows. He started the thread.

Tell Wallows. He started the thread. — Terrapin Station

I did. And the first nuclear weapons for attacking N Korea, and Iran, and Syria, and the Balkans, and anyone attacking Gibraltar, not the least, could be ready in September. That's why Trump is in the UK getting a full military parade.

Tell Wallows. He started the thread. — Terrapin Station

Tell Wallows what? That the SDI was a hoax to bankrupt the Soviets? Because that's all I'm getting from @ernestm's logic hereabouts.

I did. And the first nuclear weapons for attacking N Korea, and Iran, and Syria, and the Balkans, and anyone attacking Gibraltar, not the least, could be ready in September. That's why Trump is in the UK getting a full military parade. — ernestm

?? In your view, we'd not be able to attack North Korea, say, with nuclear weapons today, but we would be able to in September?

That the SDI was a hoax to bankrupt the Soviets? — Wallows

It wasn't to bankrupt the Soviets. It was a bluff to get them to the table for START 2 so the USA did not need to commission another heavy water plant. The two which the USA had have both expired and closed down. The USA no heavy water plant now, it is living on reserves. thats also why the older nuclear weapons are being recycled now.

If Boeing does not slip schedule, the first nuclear bunker busters will be available in September. Currently the USA does not have any nuclear bunker busters. No one has. They are being made by modifying B61-12 nuclear bombs for more ground-piercing directional force. Boeing was just given money to manufacture them in April, and the first ones are planned in September, ahead of the original schedule, as it was in 2015 and since Trump took over, because of the N Korea nuclear tests and missile tests.

Isn't that a more specific idea than "the first nuclear weapons for attacking N. Korea . . ."?

sn't that a more specific idea than "the first nuclear weapons for attacking N. Korea . . ."? — Terrapin Station

They can't use the old nuclear weapons for attacking N Korea without violating the START treaty, so they have to convert the old ones into nuclear bunker busters first. And they had to wait for Russia to start doing it too. To avoid MAD. Now Russia is doing it too, according to Mattis Russia started it in fact, so now they can use nuclear bunker busters in September. That's why Kim Jong suddenly started being really nice. Because he worked that out last year, about the same time I did.

Weird, "Isn't that a more specific idea than 'the first nuclear weapons for attacking N. Korea . . .'?" seems like a yes or no question to me. Either it's more specific or it's not.

the USA does have nuclear weapons it could use now if it wanted to start a nuclear war with Russia. But the first nuclear weapons it can use without starting a war with Russia will be available in September, on current schedule.

Uhh, @ernestm, what about China? I don't think the US wants an escalation with China, do they?

So that's a more specific idea, no?

China tested its nuclear weapons last week, but the system they want to use in the upcoming 'small tactical nuclear conflicts' scenario for a world war won't be ready until 2024 by its current schedule, by which time, the USA will have proven, on current plan, that its nuclear bunker busters in N Korea will not have caused any significant damage to China.

I see we are digressing here... I'm gonna go wallow now. See you guys in 8.

I'm gonna go wallow now. — Wallows

Sure. Thanks for chat. See you in the air in September, perhaps.

I find it hard to believe that laser systems are in some way inferior to conventional chemical-based munitions. It's like comparing an electric car to a gasoline on — Wallows

You see, there is the issue of HOW you use a weapon and from what is the weapons platform. These are extremely important issues here. It's not comparing an electric motor to a gasoline motor.

Above all, there's one huge disadvantage that laser weapons have to missiles: they immediately show the location of weapon system and the weapon system has to have a visual contact with the target. Weapon systems that acquire a target one way, hopefully passively in order not to set of any alarms, and then attack by a missile or a smart weapon (fired from another place) simply are far better as they far more survivable in the modern battlefield. And the laser weapons they are extremely costly. And big and cumbersome. Even after decades of work into them.

You can see from the above thread (from me and ernestm) see just HOW BIG these laser weapon systems are. Yes, you can have one in a cruiser (planned) or airborne with a Boeing 747, a program which was cancelled. Then Robert Gates made this comment in a hearing about it:

I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire ... So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there's nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept.

So, with that in mind, lets start designing A SATELLITE that does the same thing from even further away. And when you observe that the technology is with its present test-beds so large it has to be put into a huge aircraft (that still lacks the power) and planned to be employed with ships. But nope, let's put it into a rocket and send it up to space. It didn't happen in the 1980's and isn't happening today. But technology will solve it because.... we have Elon Musk. So hopefully, after nearly 30 years from the initation of SDI, people can observe how ludicrous the idea then was...as it still is now.

Yet if you really are going to prevent launches of ground based ballistic missiles, why on Earth waste your money on a plane that costs billion and a half piece, is one of the most expensive aircraft to operate and is a sitting duck for enemy SAM's or aircraft, when you simply can have ordinary ground attack aircraft or cheaper drones patrolling the area and attacking anything that looks like a mobile launcher? The whole US war fighting strategy depends on air superiority right from the start. And are you going to have these airborne lasers patrolling all the Worlds oceans?

Nope, sorry, the actual solutions and weapon systems that various armed forces (US, Russia, Israel) have developed and are in operation tell just what the technological limits there are.

Besides, the whole thing about shooting down missiles is far more a political issue than a military one. Apart from nukes, ballistic missiles are simply a nuisance which typically just gets politicians upset if their civilian population is put into peril in an otherwise totally one sided conflict. Let's not forget that V-2 rockets killed actually far more Jews and prisoners of war working on them than British civilians. And ballistic missiles are still very costly. Still, any opponent facing the wrath of the US military it would be a good strategy just to have a few mobile launchers around, which would fire one to two missiles as they they would put the US Air Force on a wild goose chase to find them. And this actually happened during the Gulf War.

(But the paintings are so fine about laser weapons!)

When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands; when the US failed in Vietnam; when Russia rolled into the Crimea; the concept of MADestruction was show to fail.
When you have weapons you cannot use, they can be no deterrent.