And you are BOTH talking that if the missile is not going to improve ,while the laser will be improved ?? hmm,interesting logic...Quote:
Originally Posted by PhanttoM
Printable View
And you are BOTH talking that if the missile is not going to improve ,while the laser will be improved ?? hmm,interesting logic...Quote:
Originally Posted by PhanttoM
They will BOTH be improved at different, but not constant rates. Lets take a modern, more easily discernible example. In the medieval era, armor basically consisted of metal plating, which evolved to chain mail to counter arrows (imperfectly, but it did the job). After some time the firearm was invented, which was stopped by thicker plate mail, but not chain mail. Then the bullet (and propellant) was further perfected until ANY type of body armor was simply extra weight. This continued for 100 years until the advent of recent body armor. Now there are different types of bullets that are designed to go through body armor, and body armor that is designed against certain types of bullets (ie US military grade armor can stop about 3 AK-47 bullets, whereas an M14 bullet will go through both sides)Quote:
Originally Posted by arthas
This may seem unrelated, but it is a short description of how armor and projectile advance at different rates through time. This happens time and time again through time. I am not arguing that there is not a way to fool new techniques, but what I AM saying is that it is folly to say that something is PERFECT and will never be bypassed. That is the kind of thinking that gets you killed in the world of military armament.
PLUS the missile is a much lower tech piece of equipment opposed to the laser, as of yet. We do not know what capabilities the laser will have in the future, but we as a race have a fairly firm grasp of how missiles work, and their limitations.
Says who? Lasers were available since the 50s,and ICBMs were avalaible in the late 60s...Actually the US goverment scrapped the whole laser research because they were ineffective ,And without missiles there would be any satelites,space exploration etc...Their isn't any limitation on missiles,New and unique engines are discovered all the time,and more and more better weight-to-power ratios are achieved...So maybe new future missiles will have some sort of a engine that uses micro fusion or antimatter-matter collision driving them,And that means relativistic speeds...Quote:
Originally Posted by almostfamous
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthas
ICBMs were not available until the 60's, missiles and rockets were invented during World War 2 by the Germans, but not put into mass production because they were in the middle of the war. There are eventual limitations to EVERY technology, you don't see people fighting wars with catapults, do you? And where are you pulling these micro fusion antimatter collision things out of?
The whole reason I got involved in this debate was because you were ignorant of current technology with missile defense systems. You claimed that it was not possible to intercept and destroy missiles. Ever. Others and myself have proven otherwise, with both lasers and with "interceptors" it is possible. I don't give a witches tit what theoretical technology you pull out of scifi book, all I want you to acknowledge is that is ABSURD to state that missiles are impossible to intercept, and that orbital domination is a MUST for the aforesaid reasons in the SC universe for the nuclear devastation on Korhal. That's all I want.
And as for the missile being a lower tech piece of equipment? Perhaps that was an overstatement. But it has been proven that a laser can burn through objects (think ant under a magnifying glass). The possibilities for that are almost endless, and just because we have not yet unearthed their secrets does not mean they are buried forever. Missiles, on the other hand are indeed limited by certain physical and structural parameters.
I never said missiles didn't exist...? I'm confused what you are trying ot say...Quote:
Originally Posted by arthas