Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday December 16 2019, @12:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the space-ace dept.

Recently Retired USAF General Makes Eyebrow-Raising Claims About Advanced Space Technology

Recently retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. Kwast gave a lecture last month that seems to further signal that the next major battlefield will be outer space. While military leadership rattling the space sabers is nothing new, Kwast's lecture included comments that heavily hint at the possibility that the United States military and its industry partners may have already developed next-generation technologies that have the potential to drastically change the aerospace field, and human civilization, forever. Is this mere posturing or could we actually be on the verge of making science fiction a reality?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday December 17 2019, @05:21AM (2 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Tuesday December 17 2019, @05:21AM (#933170) Journal
    The real problem is continuous boost in-atmosphere missiles that can travel low in the atmosphere so there's no ballistic flight path, no high arc to target for interception, and way lower time to target from Russia's east coast to the USA. How are you going to intercept something traveling 20,000 mph at 1000 feet that can maneuver?
    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @06:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @06:35AM (#933193)

    It is the standard trade off in warfare. If you can't do something better, do more of it. If you can't make a single object capable of reliable interception of those, then just shoot more than one interceptor. For an example of such a philosophy, look at the CIWS or CRAM, where multiple projectiles (sometimes in the thousands) are used.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @07:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @07:46AM (#933205)

    In general warfare, that's not even scratching the surface. Russia has now developed technology [popularmechanics.com] to create directed artificial and unimaginably massive tsunamis using underwater nuclear detonations that there's no practical way to stop. Imagine a 300 meter tsunami traveling miles inward and consuming New York City. Oh yes, the tsunami's waters would also be heavily radioactive. Unlike a missile blast you could see it coming. The detonation would set off detectors worldwide. And we'd be able to see the tsunami coming, potentially from hundreds of miles away. Nonetheless, there'd be absolutely nothing to do about it. Everything within miles of the coast is going to be under hundreds of meters of radioactive water in less than an hour. Effective evacuation would be impossible.

    This is why the saber rattling is so unbelievably idiotic. It's in denial to the basic reality of the world today and that's that no "developed" (read: nuclear) nation has any chance of militarily coercing any other developed nation. Something to consider on any political leader that wants to take a 'hardline' stance on 'belligerent' nations. The political leaders will be fine in any nuclear scenario. They have nice super safe bunkers, and will be flown out of any potentially dangerous regions within seconds of reasonable concern. And for those of sufficient narcissism (more than abundant among high level politicians), they will leave a legacy that will never be forgotten.