Surface-to-air … lasers
posted at 10:42 am on May 3, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They say it’s for shooting down satellites, but anyone alive during the Reagan era and/or who sat through Spies Like Us knows what it’s really for.
If we research this technology, other countries might start researching it. If we don’t research it, they certainly won’t either. Right, Congresswoman Sanchez?
But some Congressional Democrats and other experts fault the research as potential fuel for an antisatellite arms race that could ultimately hurt this nation more than others because the United States relies so heavily on military satellites, which aid navigation, reconnaissance and attack warning.
In a statement, Representative Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat on the subcommittee who opposes the laser’s development, thanked her Republican colleagues for agreeing to curb a program “with the potential to weaponize space.”
That last bit refers to the fact that the Armed Services Subcomittee on Strategic Forces voted last week — unanimously — to cut the project’s budget for FY 2007 even though it costs next to nothing: $20 million this year, climbing to $30 million by 2011. The full House committee will consider the issue later today.
I’ll be appearing before the panel sometime this morning to deliver my prepared remarks, “It’s Too F’n Cool Not to Build.”
Here’s a close-up of the laser cannon; I like to think of it as Death Star: The Early Years. Here’s a graphic from the NYT that summarizes the latest technological breakthrough. And here’s a history of the laser program which notes that they already succeeded in shooting down atmospheric aircraft — 27 years ago.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The Dems didnt want bombers in the late 30’s, We built and needed 30,000 to 40,000 of them. The Dems didnt want Tanks and called Rumsfeld an Idiot for moving forward with the M1A1 Abrams Tank in the 70’s? I believe we’ve needed them as well.
Lets go with the death ray!
shooter on May 3, 2006 at 11:48 AM
No, we must not “weaponize” space!
Of course the Chinese have other ideas but this is no concern of Democrats. I guess that they forgot about Bill Clinton’s approval of the missile technology in exchange for cash contributions to his library.
The fact is that we must now develop new strategies to combat those same technologies! We must now demonstrate openly the price any nation will pay if they choose to attack any of our space assets. Clinton’s treason has forced us to change our strategy with regard to space weapons.
Once again the Democrats cause a vulnerability, and then panic and blame if we’re attacked. I applaud the geniuses behind this science and pray for it’s continued success in protecting our nation.
Gault on May 3, 2006 at 11:53 AM
This weapon has a chance if we can figure out how to strap them to the heads of sharks..
But of course this is another alarmist reactionary report of something that looks to only a possibility and may never actually get implemented.
SteveD on May 3, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Currently, China, Russia have both researched and fielded various types of ASAT weapontry. Iran (there is a shock) is currently moving in this direction as well (with the help of China and Russia). Is it not high time we threw off the shackles of political correctness especially in the realm of national defense and fund a realistic R&D program?
Terlizzi999 on May 3, 2006 at 12:32 PM
I don’t know whether this is true or not, but my theory
has always been that when we start to debate publicly the merits of a weapons system, we already have it and are just trying to get more funding for the next black program.
At least I can hope that we do it this way. Otherwise we would be telegraphing our punch. Plus it gives us a little quality time with our weapons before they get given to our enemies!
Gooch on May 3, 2006 at 12:38 PM
30 million by 2011 – the Education departemtn loses track of that much every year. If no one cares about losing that much, no one will care about spending it on lasers.
2wylde on May 3, 2006 at 12:38 PM
There is no inherent monopoly on technical capability. All we can do as a nation is to keep at it and pray that we can say ahead of our enemies. We cannot unilaterally stop the race.
dman on May 3, 2006 at 5:50 PM
This is a DEFENSIVE weapon, to shoot down INCOMING planes and missiles. What we need is a mirror in space to redirect the lazer to hit targets on the other side of the planet. I remember reading about this in Airman magazine when I was in the Air Force back in 1991. So maybe we already have it.
Condi ‘08!
Tony737 on May 4, 2006 at 8:22 PM
It will be like any other arms race: anti-satellite lasers will beget anti-laser satellites, which will beget anti-anti-, etc. It’s never-ending, expensive, and NECESSARY. It’s dumb – except when compared with the alternatives. A price we must pay for being human and free from the tyranny of others.
dman on May 5, 2006 at 4:11 PM
Comment pages: