Is this what war will come to?

[Mister Frag 0]

Have a look at this Popular Science article.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Picture this: A massive destroyer receives the location coordinates of an enemy headquarters more than 200 miles away. Instead of launching a million-dollar Tomahawk cruise missile, it points a gun barrel in the direction of the target, diverts electric power from the ship's engine to the gun turret, and launches a 3-foot-long, 40-pound projectile up a set of superconducting rails. The projectile leaves the barrel at hypersonic velocity--Mach 7-plus--exits the Earth's atmosphere, re-enters under satellite guidance, and lands on the building less than six minutes later; its incredible velocity vaporizes the target with kinetic energy alone.

LMAO, back to the age of catapults, eh?

[DracoPaladore 0]

I thought there were treaties already made to prevent nations from building space weapons?

(context to something read in article, not the kinetic super catipult)

[Skewballzz 0]

No law applies to the US anymore, they just dont care if another nation tells em no. Look in the history books....

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]No law applies to the US anymore, they just dont care if another nation tells em no.  Look in the history books....

I hardly think a projectile qualifies as a space weapon. Don't confuse breaking international treaties (which I'm not aware the US has done, but correct me if I'm wrong) and ignoring the UN (which isn't exactly illegal... but there are already threads on that)

[Mister Frag 0]

Quote[/b] ]Picture this: A massive destroyer receives the location coordinates of an enemy headquarters more than 200 miles away. Instead of launching a million-dollar Tomahawk cruise missile, it points a gun barrel in the direction of the target, diverts electric power from the ship's engine to the gun turret, and launches a 3-foot-long, 40-pound projectile up a set of superconducting rails. The projectile leaves the barrel at hypersonic velocity--Mach 7-plus--exits the Earth's atmosphere, re-enters under satellite guidance, and lands on the building less than six minutes later; its incredible velocity vaporizes the target with kinetic energy alone.

LMAO, back to the age of catapults, eh?  

I'm certainly no expert on this subject, but to me it would seem that if you wanted to destroy a building, you'd have to produce an explosion so the building is wrecked from the expansion and shockwave of the warhead.

The immense energy of a 40-pound warhead travelling at hypervelocities will be useless unless you are going after a hardened target, it will just punch through without an efficient energy transfer -- that's why the 1996 attack by Bandidos members on the Hells Angels headquarter in Copenhagen with an antitank weapon caused insignificant damage.

[DracoPaladore 0]

I hardly think a projectile qualifies as a space weapon.

If its dropped or launched from space, dosn't that qualify as a space weapon then?

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]If its dropped or launched from space, dosn't that qualify as a space weapon then?

Well, I suppose so. Let me clarify. I hardly think a projectile fired from a ship qualifies as a space weapon, even if said projectile enters space. This is the weapons system being described. If it was fired from space, I might have a problem with it.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Oh, I wasn't referring to the ship. I was referring to the orbital space platforms discussed in the articles. I should have clarified earlier.

[denoir 0]

I'm certainly no expert on this subject, but to me it would seem that if you wanted to destroy a building, you'd have to produce an explosion so the building is wrecked from the expansion and shockwave of the warhead.

They're not talking about explosive warheads but inert. And such are already in use just not space launched but dropped from planes. The idea there is to drop a heavy object that does great local damage, but no collateral. Dropped on a building it would probably tear down the bearing walls, ultimately resulting in a collapse.

Quote[/b] ]The immense energy of a 40-pound warhead travelling at hypervelocities will be useless unless you are going after a hardened target, it will just punch through without an efficient energy transfer -- that's why the 1996 attack by Bandidos members on the Hells Angels headquarter in Copenhagen with an antitank weapon caused insignificant damage.

That's a different story. The RPG used there was utterly useless because it used a HEAT warhead. HEAT requires contact with armor to work. It uses a shaped charge so that when it explodes, the force and heat of the explosive focus into a small but powerful gas jet. This jet melts the armor and sprays molten metal inside, killing the crew. Used against a concrete wall it is utterly useless. It can punch through but does little damage inside.

[ralphwiggum 6]

makes super cannon look like a kid's slingshot

[Mister Frag 0]

That's a different story. The RPG used there was utterly useless because it used a HEAT warhead. HEAT requires contact with armor to work. It uses a shaped charge so that when it explodes, the force and heat of the explosive focus into a small but powerful gas jet. This jet melts the armor and sprays molten metal inside, killing the crew. Used against a concrete wall it is utterly useless. It can punch through but does little damage inside.

I wasn't implying that the AT weapon used in that attack was a kinetic energy weapon. My point was that without an explosive warhead, the structural damage would be limited.

By the way, I wasn't certain whether it was an RPG that was used. I had a suspicion that it was, but thought it might have been a Bofors or some other western AT weapon.

[denoir 0]

It was a Bofors AT-4/86 LAW (aka P-skott) and it is an RPG launcher (not as in the Russian weapon family designation but in its technical definition - rocket propelled grenade)

[soul_assassin 1750]

Quote[/b] ]Don't confuse breaking international treaties (which I'm not aware the US has done, but correct me if I'm wrong) and ignoring the UN (which isn't exactly illegal... but there are already threads on that)

dont u watch the news? PoW torture is violation of the Geneva Convention.

[Apollo 0]

Why go trough the hassle of developing such a complicated and probably expensive weapon if their are much cheaper alternatives?

Want me to give the future of warfare?IMO in here and 20-30 years our evolution in biogenetics will be that developed that creating a highly deadly and easy transferable virus able to kill out a whole ethnicity (even checking for certain gene's by the virus) will probably be as easy as programmers today write a simple proggy.Once the code is known and understood....

The world has seen countless bloody wars ,but in the end the biggest killer ever was the black plague

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]dont u watch the news?

Don't you have the time to spell out a three letter word?

[Placebo 29]

Discuss the topic please, not each others posting styles

[EiZei 0]

The world has seen countless bloody wars ,but in the end the biggest killer ever was the black plague

Think one all-out nuclear war would beat that one though.

[Lumamorod 0]

War may be diferent now, and will be in the future. But only if you want to anihilate the enemy. (And no major country in the forseeable(Sp?) future will want to do that.)

If you want to conquer it, (or liberate it, or whatever political guise you call it) you still have to send soldiers in...

Thats the expensive part.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ] ...launches a 3-foot-long, 40-pound projectile ...

A 3-foot long, 40 lb projectile made of steel would have a diameter of less than 2 inches.  I have a tough time imagining such an object destroying a building, at any speed - not to mention that a fair bit of it would be consumed during re-entry into the atmosphere. Btw, a concrete projectile would be ~ 3 inches wide.

[Skewballzz 0]

I can't even imagine the shockwave from the air alone. Sonic boom from mach+7; say goodbye to windows. I think something at that speed would definatly cause some damage, its just that people are stuck in the whole way that you need explosives to destroy things. Think outside of the box...

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why go trough the hassle of developing such a complicated and probably expensive weapon if their are much cheaper alternatives?

Want me to give the future of warfare?IMO in here and 20-30 years our evolution in biogenetics will be that developed that creating a highly deadly and easy transferable virus able to kill out a whole ethnicity (even checking for certain gene's by the virus) will probably be as easy as programmers today write a simple proggy.Once the code is known and understood....

The world has seen countless bloody wars ,but in the end the biggest killer ever was the black plague

Most countries wont use such a wepon for the same reason they dont use nukes. Do you seriously think many countries would even considder whiping out a whole human raise in a war?

Quote[/b] ]I can't even imagine the shockwave from the air alone. Sonic boom from mach+7; say goodbye to windows. I think something at that speed would definatly cause some damage, its just that people are stuck in the whole way that you need explosives to destroy things. Think outside of the box...

I agree.

Wk=(mv^2)/2.

It doesnt matter how small an object is, just give it enough speed and it will destroy anything.

Light doesnt weigh alot but a laser can cut through steel.

[johnnylump 0]

I hardly think a projectile qualifies as a space weapon.

If its dropped or launched from space, dosn't that qualify as a space weapon then?

I don't think it is considered a "space weapon" subject to the Outer Space Treaty because it's launched from the surface, just like a ballistic missile.

Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits space-based weapons of mass destruction:

<<States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited. >>

...

I think the old ABM treaty, (from which the US has withdrawn) prohibited space-based ABM defenses. But AFAIK there are no other restrictions on space-based weaponry.

Here's a pretty good, if somewhat academic, take from a Washington think tank:

http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm

[jakerod 254]

Technically it isn't a Weapon of Mass Destruction... I don't think. Plus it wouldn't have to be space based like it said it could be fired from a destroyer or something.

[Guest]

Quote[/b] ] ...launches a 3-foot-long, 40-pound projectile ...

A 3-foot long, 40 lb projectile made of steel would have a diameter of less than 2 inches.  I have a tough time imagining such an object destroying a building, at any speed - not to mention that a fair bit of it would be consumed during re-entry into the atmosphere.  Btw, a concrete projectile would be ~ 3 inches wide.

Think of a 7.62mm or even 12.7mm caliber bullet in relation to the size of the average man. I know the kinetics dont "exactly" match up, but i'm sure the concept is similar.

And the object would also likely be superheated from atmospheric re-entry...