Re: Planetery Defense Batteries

devans@uneb.edu wrote:

> Interference and distortion crossed my mind, though there is plenty of
PSB why
> this won't be a concern in 10 yrs, much more the future we're talking
about. 

If the Planetary Defence Facility (PDF) is on an earthlike planet, I'd
suggest 60 degree arcs. Consider the effect of a beam hot enough to
punch through the atmosphere and zap spacecraft a zillion clicks away.
Now imagine, say 1% of that energy being wasted in the atmosphere.

Can you say "ecologically Unsound"?

Maybe I can believe that a Multi-Gigajoule pulse directed nearly
straight up would be merely equivalent of a multiple lightning strike or
pony nuke ie no effect on the neighbours. But to have such a beam at a
shallow grazing angle would be disruptive to the local area to say the
least.

I see PDFs as being of two types: Those in Orbit, which are essentially
thrustless spaceships, armed conventionally (and which can be "Weapons
Free"), and those huge facilities parked on convenient areas, such as
Greenland or Antarctica, with 1-arc Type 10 Beams and 2000 pts of
armour. Such facilities are both rare, and kept under strict rules of
engagement, as every time you fire, you cause a hurricane.

Such facilities are only susceptible to Ortillery or Ground Attack, but
could possibly be supressed (with 200+ Damage Control parties, odds of a
permanent kill are small).

-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au  o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale