Re: Further thoughts on hitting with lasers

> Actually, with the proper systems, it shouldn't be that much of a
problem.
> If you have a fast enough computer to analyze what you're tracking, a
> sensitive enough detector, and a fast enough drive mechanism, you
ought to
> be able to lock onto anything within your operating parameters.
Visual-type
> telescopes (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to above)
wouldn't be
> what you'd want, though. For the most part, their field is too
restricted.
> Radar would be far preferable. Radar can cover an area of sky, and
report to
> the computer where the targets are, which can tell whatever it needs
to tell
> where something is. But you prolly already figured that bit out.  ;-)
>
> While I don't have direct experience with them, I'm sure NORAD uses a
battery
> of radars to keep track of the God-knows-how-many objects that are
floating
> around in orbit up there, and I *think* they track things as small as
a
> quarter, maybe a bit smaller. Impossible to do visually.
>

One thought, would this not lead to stealth muntions, muntions which are
harder to detect and therefore intercept. Or muntions which on closing
with the
target
or being hit with a radar beam of a certain strength ( ie active
tracking vers
passive search)
deploy a large number of warheads, some decoys etc to swamp the
defenses.

Darren