Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/8116825
A report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) raised the question of whether Russia might be emboldened to fire a NSNW in the belief that the West lacks the resolve to deliver a nuclear response.
There have been discussions about how many viable strategic nuclear weapons Russia might still have, and with things like laser defense systems, how many of the warheads could actually reach their targets.
Russia might get tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons, but might also get some strategic ones in return, if the West believes that Russia no longer has MAD capability (and seeing the “ludicrous display” of Russia’s military, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case).
Laser defense systems are short range and anything traveling between mach 6 and mach 10 is going to be extremely difficult to hit by the time the weapon is in range. Some tactical nukes might be slower an more vulnerable, but laser defense weapons are better used on slower things like drones, rockets or even artillery shells and morters, for now.
Lasers have been used to shoot down satellites before, by both the US and China. Those shows were not really about satellites, they were about hitting long range targets moving at above “mach 10”.
The effectiveness of a laser system, is neither about speed nor range, but about exposure time of the target. They need more time than a high velocity explosive to disable a target, and they need it to stay in line of sight for that time… but once they get that, nothing can beat the speed of light.
Drones, are more likely to be able to hide until the last moment, but a strong enough beam may not need much time to disable one… yet any explosives attached, might still reach their target. Shells and mortars are a mixed bag, they may offer longer exposure, but not necessarily enough to get disabled before impact. Rockets can be turned into falling balls of scrap, but also become ballistic explosives. High maneuverability airplanes and missiles can be a serious challenge, particularly if they fly low enough to stay out of sight. Ships would make great targets, if it wasn’t that they’re massive heat sinks, and usually equipped with something capable of shooting back along the laser beam to wherever it’s coming from.
Where lasers outshine themselves, is at targets with low angular speeds, long line of sight times, following a predictable trajectory, which can’t shoot back. That includes trees, blimps, satellites… and ICBMs.
If Russia doesn’t have some serious lasers under the sleeve, and nothing indicates towards that, then MAD is broken and using Russia as an ICBM testing ground becomes viable, for at least the US and China.
The effectiveness of a laser system, is neither about speed nor range, but about exposure time of the target.
I get what you are saying, but exposure time is directly related to speed and range in the context of the laser systems I was referring to. I’ll explain below and try to call out my own knowledge gaps as well.
I knew we had satellite killers, but I didn’t think those were practical enough to be deployed in an effective capacity yet. If there are, that would be neat.
For the smaller systems, I am only aware of the Israeli laser systems used to supplement their “iron dome” and some of the ones the US has on their ships. Both of those, I thought, only had an max effective range of about 2km, but only because of average atmospheric conditions. (And maybe even beam dispersion or something? That is a guess.) 2km @ mach 6 is 2 seconds of exposure time provided that the target acquired in advance.
It just makes more sense that those two laser systems are used to supplement a larger defense strategy. My mistake if I implied that they would completely solve any issues and not have consequences. Sure, the rocket, morter or whatever may not hit its primary target, but anything else could be considered a secondary target, I suppose.
(If I said anything stupid, just call me out. I like discussions about these kinds of things.)
Lasers have been used to shoot down satellites before, by both the US and China. Those shows were not really about satellites, they were about hitting long range targets moving at above “mach 10”.
Laser systems are far more effective in space than on the ground. (still plenty effective, but you need very powerful lasers to destroy a spread of warheads on time)
Nuclear weapons have one vital property: There is absolutely no way a world leader can use one, and be firmly confident that the consequences won’t come back around to impact the leader themselves, and their own family.
Not that they’re safe. But I’m glad they have that property.
