Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Thanks Tree41Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 31st, 2018, 06:56 PM   #31
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
It depends on how high the orbit(s), & how the power is being beamed down. If it's by maser, then the array has built-in defenses. Some organic tracking & relatively simple pointing & converging fire programming, & that array could stand off a lot of missiles.

The ground stations are softer targets, as they might be vulnerable to shells & missiles & bombs. But again, if you have an orbiting maser array with a lot of the sun's power/square foot energy delivery behind it, & an agile pointing/tracking system, even arty rounds could be fried mid-flight.
People are afraid of self-driving cars but would be comfortable with space based "tools" that had the power to bring down missiles? Or fry several city blocks?

I think rather than tool, the word weapon works better in that sentence.

The lasers sent to the moon to measure the distance disperse to a diameter of 7 km when they get there. So how tight do you think these beams would be?
RNG is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 07:48 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,781
Sir Isaac reflects

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
People are afraid of self-driving cars but would be comfortable with space based "tools" that had the power to bring down missiles? Or fry several city blocks?

I think rather than tool, the word weapon works better in that sentence.

The lasers sent to the moon to measure the distance disperse to a diameter of 7 km when they get there. So how tight do you think these beams would be?
Yah, well, crossbows & gunpowder weapons, TNT & poison gas & nukes have all been decried as ultimate weapons & inhumane. & yet we're still here. The demands for clean cheap reliable power are inexorable - & in a large sense, all power generation on Earth is ultimately solar power - fossil fuels, nukes, wind, hydro, thermal, tides, photovoltaic - it all derives from the sun or @ least a sun. It's just another technology we'll have to learn to live with.

Let's see, dispersion of 5 miles over an average of 239K miles? @ the range of a solar orbital power array, I expect there would be no signal loss - a laser is simply an optical master - & the maser is older technology anyway.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
hoosier88 is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 08:26 PM   #33
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
Yah, well, crossbows & gunpowder weapons, TNT & poison gas & nukes have all been decried as ultimate weapons & inhumane. & yet we're still here. The demands for clean cheap reliable power are inexorable - & in a large sense, all power generation on Earth is ultimately solar power - fossil fuels, nukes, wind, hydro, thermal, tides, photovoltaic - it all derives from the sun or @ least a sun. It's just another technology we'll have to learn to live with.

Let's see, dispersion of 5 miles over an average of 239K miles? @ the range of a solar orbital power array, I expect there would be no signal loss - a laser is simply an optical master - & the maser is older technology anyway.
Masers and lasers are the same things physically, it's just that the m in maser stands for microwaves and the l in laser stands for light. It was the easiest to get a population inversion in atoms that emitted in the microwave band and that is why they were the first.

But a beam of any of that type will still disperse to some degree. Assuming the same degree of dispersion, a beam from a geostationary satellite would be about 1.3 miles in diameter.
RNG is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 09:31 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Masers and lasers are the same things physically, it's just that the m in maser stands for microwaves and the l in laser stands for light. It was the easiest to get a population inversion in atoms that emitted in the microwave band and that is why they were the first.

But a beam of any of that type will still disperse to some degree. Assuming the same degree of dispersion, a beam from a geostationary satellite would be about 1.3 miles in diameter.
Interesting, so probably the net energy delivered on target has to have a sufficiently small enough area to which to apply so that it could be used as a weapon. Hope that made sense....

Intensity, that's what I mean.

If it had sufficient intensity to disable incoming ballistic missiles over a 1.3 mi. diameter circle, or even a fraction of that area, it'd be one hell of a weapon to begin with, a hell of a weapon all by itself.
Thanks from RNG
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 1st, 2018, 03:17 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
Yah, well, crossbows & gunpowder weapons, TNT & poison gas & nukes have all been decried as ultimate weapons & inhumane. & yet we're still here. The demands for clean cheap reliable power are inexorable - & in a large sense, all power generation on Earth is ultimately solar power - fossil fuels, nukes, wind, hydro, thermal, tides, photovoltaic - it all derives from the sun or @ least a sun. It's just another technology we'll have to learn to live with.

Let's see, dispersion of 5 miles over an average of 239K miles? @ the range of a solar orbital power array, I expect there would be no signal loss - a laser is simply an optical master - & the maser is older technology anyway.
Dispersion of five miles over a distance of 240k miles. Back in the day I could calculate the focal point but haven't done that for over forty years.

edit: Not an optical master but an optical maser. However, there is no such animal as an optical maser. A maser is a microwave receiver and not a microwave transmitter.

Happy Easter to everyone on this board.

Last edited by Twisted Sister; April 1st, 2018 at 03:44 AM.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old April 1st, 2018, 06:11 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,781
Blinded by the light

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Dispersion of five miles over a distance of 240k miles. Back in the day I could calculate the focal point but haven't done that for over forty years.

edit: Not an optical master but an optical maser. However, there is no such animal as an optical maser. A maser is a microwave receiver and not a microwave transmitter.

Happy Easter to everyone on this board.
Yah, I remembered 250k miles. Here's my source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)

"Lunar distance (LD or Δ ⊕ L {\textstyle \Delta _{\oplus L}}), also called Earth–Moon distance, Earth–Moon characteristic distance, or distance to the Moon, is a unit of measure in astronomy. It is the average distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon. More technically, it is the mean semi-major axis of the geocentric lunar orbit. It may also refer to the time-averaged distance between the centers of the Earth and the Moon, or less commonly, the instantaneous Earth–Moon distance. The lunar distance is approximately a quarter of a million miles (400000 km).[1]

"The mean semi-major axis has a value of 384,402 km (238,856 mi).[2] The time-averaged distance between Earth and Moon centers is 385,000.6 km (239,228.3 mi). The actual distance varies over the course of the orbit of the Moon, from 356,500 km (221,500 mi) at the perigee to 406,700 km (252,700 mi) at apogee, resulting in a differential range of 50,200 km (31,200 mi).[3]"

(My emphasis - Did I pick the wrong one?)

Yah, master is my bad, finger check.

"Laser

"In 1957, Charles Hard Townes and Arthur Leonard Schawlow, then at Bell Labs, began a serious study of the infrared laser. As ideas developed, they abandoned infrared radiation to instead concentrate upon visible light. The concept originally was called an "optical maser". In 1958, Bell Labs filed a patent application for their proposed optical maser; and Schawlow and Townes submitted a manuscript of their theoretical calculations to the Physical Review, published that year in Volume 112, Issue No. 6."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#Maser)

Yep, optical maser is an old name for it, not used much anymore, except maybe in historical discussions of the tech. & so it goes. However, TMK, a maser is a microwave emitter.
Thanks from RNG
hoosier88 is offline  
Old April 1st, 2018, 06:53 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
Yes & no. The US is on track to become a net energy exporter again (not since the 1950s), by 2026 (see United States could be an energy exporter by 2026, EIA suggests - Business Insider)

Our main concern internationally with oil/natgas is to shield Europe & our allies from undue political/economic pressure over fuel supplies (China mostly imports & consumes energy - the CIS gains influence/income from gaming the international fuel market).

I think we (the US, & probably the West) should leapfrog the entire fossil fuel industry, & put our emphasis on fusion power generation, or solar arrays in orbit - so that dependable power supplies are assured. We can also hope that the price of power will drop, but that may take a while.
Germany attempted to build a railroad to Baghdad before the first world war and I am very sure a major cause of that war was Britain prevented Germany from building that railroad. World history would be totally different if Germany had been able to build that railroad. The value of oil was known before the invention of gas-fueled vehicles and so did people know where to get it.

Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...oleum_industry
Four thousand years ago, according to Herodotus and confirmed by Diodorus Siculus, asphalt was used in the construction of the walls and towers of Babylon; there were oil pits near Ardericca (near Babylon), and a pitch spring on Zacynthus (Ionian islands, Greece).[1] Great quantities of it were found on the banks of the river Issus[citation needed], one of the tributaries of the Euphrates. Ancient Persian tablets indicate the medicinal and lighting uses of petroleum in the upper levels of their society[citation needed].

Oil was exploited in the Roman province of Dacia, now in Romania, where it was called picula.[citation needed]

The use of petroleum dates back to ancient China more than 2000 years ago. In I Ching, one of the earliest Chinese writings cites the use of oil in its raw state without refining was first discovered, extracted, and used in China in the first century BCE. In addition, the Chinese were the first to use petroleum as fuel as the early as the fourth century BCE.[2][3][4][5]

The earliest known oil wells were drilled in China in 347 AD or earlier. They had depths of up to about 800 feet (240 m) and were drilled using bits attached to bamboo poles.[6][7][8][9][unreliable source?] The oil was burned to evaporate brine and produce salt. By the 10th century, extensive bamboo pipelines connected oil wells with salt springs. The ancient records of China and Japan are said to contain many allusions to the use of natural gas for lighting and heating. Petroleum was known as burning water in Japan in the 7th century.[1] In his book Dream Pool Essays written in 1088, the polymathic scientist and statesman Shen Kuo of the Song Dynasty coined the word 石油 (Shíyóu, literally "rock oil") for petroleum, which remains the term used in contemporary Chinese and Japanese (Sekiyū).

The first streets of Baghdad were paved with tar, derived from petroleum that became accessible from natural fields in the region. In the 9th century, oil fields were exploited in the area around modern Baku, Azerbaijan. These fields were described by the Arab geographer Abu al-Hasan 'Alī al-Mas'ūdī in the 10th century, and by Marco Polo in the 13th century, who described the output of those wells as hundreds of shiploads. Distillation of Petroleum was described by the Persian alchemist, Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi (Rhazes).[10][unreliable source] There was production of chemicals such as kerosene in the alembic (al-ambiq),[11] which was mainly used for kerosene lamps.[12] Arab and Persian chemists also distilled crude oil in order to produce flammable products for military purposes. Through Islamic Spain, distillation became available in Western Europe by the 12th century.[13] It has also been present in Romania since the 13th century, being recorded as păcură.[14]
The world war may not have happened if Britain did not stand in the way of Germany's economic growth. It is also unlikely it would have lost either world war if it had the railroad to Baghdad.

Quote:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/339
To conclude--this essay began with a anecdote about George S. Patton, American general and tank commander. Let me close with a refernce to a superior officer on the other side, Field-Marshall Karl Gerd Von Rundstedt of Germany. When interviewed by newspapermen, he readily admitted how important oil had been in World War two. In fact, he attributed German defeat to three factors, to wit: (1) the Allied bombing sorties (strategic and tactical); (2) the bombardments by Allied naval guns; and (3) Germany's own deficiency in oil, especially in the form of gasoline. What more need be said?
Thanks from imaginethat and hoosier88

Last edited by Athena; April 1st, 2018 at 07:04 AM.
Athena is offline  
Old April 1st, 2018, 07:23 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,781
Heart of Oak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
Germany attempted to build a railroad to Baghdad before the first world war and I am very sure a major cause of that war was Britain prevented Germany from building that railroad. World history would be totally different if Germany had been able to build that railroad. The value of oil was known before the invention of gas-fueled vehicles and so did people know where to get it.

The world war may not have happened if Britain did not stand in the way of Germany's economic growth. It is also unlikely it would have lost either world war if it had the railroad to Baghdad.
Good overview. As I recall, it was UK Naval First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill who was instrumental in moving the UK Navy off of coal & onto oil before WWI. An excellent choice, & I believe the UK & allied victory was @ least partially credited to that change. (See Oil & WWI - also Engdahl's book.)

In larger terms, UK's foreign policy in Europe was always to keep an economic/military/political rival from gathering strength there, to rival UK's. UK's military/political policy was to maintain a very strong navy, & secondarily an army - just in case. But the emphasis was on the navy, to ensure British trade & free oceanic passage.
Thanks from imaginethat
hoosier88 is offline  
Old April 1st, 2018, 08:05 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Please note that my comments begin with, "ONE of the reasons..." and NOT "THE reason..." Thank you.
Okay, and I think understanding these other reasons is very important and the discussion involves many people, so I didn't want to leave things hanging on your one negatively stated reason for the revolution. I see the forums as a way of passing on knowledge, right? We don't fight wars to protect the selfish interest of a few people wanting to shrug their responsibilities. We fight them because we believe we are doing the right thing, and so it has been since ancient times. Only the names of the gods change.
Athena is offline  
Old April 1st, 2018, 08:16 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,781
t 1/2

Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Trump's referral to our "depleted" military is a measure of the power of the MIC.
Yah, possibly he meant uranium. (Betcha anything he consulted with his Sec. Energy - Perry. Who probably wasn't wearing his smart guy glasses @ the time. That's life - no, half-life! - for you ...)

Last edited by hoosier88; April 1st, 2018 at 09:24 AM.
hoosier88 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
discussing, wwi, wwii



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WWII survivor warnings Sabcat Political Ideologies 0 June 21st, 2017 09:43 PM
Return of the WWII warbird era coke Science and Technology 0 April 25th, 2016 05:13 PM
What the race baiting has stopped us from discussing coke Current Events 0 December 5th, 2014 10:43 AM
Feds Use Insane Intimidation Tactics To Keep Soldiers From Seeing, Discussing Wikileaks rumpelstiltskin Warfare 1 December 9th, 2010 04:03 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.