Jesse Casadaban, Daniel Iwanski, James Tucci

‘Star Wars’ Program started by Ronald Reagan in 1983R+D future technologies of missile deterrenceDefend against Russian ICBM threat

High Velocity (v=2.5 – 7 km/s)High Entry Angle (15-40 deg.)(show trajectories, 42)

Sufficient power to kill ICBM in boost phaseSufficient beam quality, pointing accuracy, and rapid retargetability to deliver lethal burst to multiple targets in engagement time windowAccurate missile launch detection and decoy discriminationCompartmentalize laser technology to size of planeMultiple shots per flight

Response to SDI ABL planConverted Boeing 747-400Completed May 2002Houses Megawatt COIL(Chemical Oxygen Iodide Laser)Multi-Level Missile Tracking SystemSpecialized Adaptive Optics

Laser pulse superheats and weakens missile skin near fuel tank, causing rupture and failure

Developed by Phillips Labs in 1977Uses hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach) and potassium hydroxide (Drano)Reacted then accelerated to supersonic speeds in laser gain region with Iodine MonohalideCreates 1.315 micron (Infrared) laser6 lasers coupled in seriesDelivers Megawatt pulse for 3-5 secDestroys TBMs at 600km and ICBMs at 300km

IR sensors – passive, six on plane, detect heat signatures of ICBM launch Targeting laser (top) acquires target by active lasing, precisely calculates range and speedTurret swivels to targetActive optics in 1.5 m telescope filter out atmospheric noisePrimary laser focuses on target, shot firesWhole process takes 8-12 secMultiple threats engaged by targeting computer

Atmospheric fluctuations cause deformation of the laser beam (stars twinkle)Rubber Mirror341 actuators adjust beam 1000x per secondEnsures proper heating of target for critical time

Data delivered via IR sensors, ground-based, and space-based trackingTargets prioritized on-board by threat Decoys discriminated20-40 shots per flight

Low energy test March 2007, small ground target illuminated, successCOIL installed July 2008High energy test January 2010, missile in-flight illuminated and destroyed, successDespite success, Airforce and SecDef Gates say ABL “does not reflect something that is operationally viable”

Started by SDI in 1983, only now being realized$ Multi-Billion spent by DoD in R+DWould require a fleet of 7 planes to stay on continuous SnD, $1.1 Billion eachRange limited, active in hotspotCannot fire through clouds, fogCompare with availability, capability, and cost of ABMs, e.g. PATRIOTFunding for 2nd plane has been cut, but R+D continues by DoD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U

US/Israel collaborationUses deuterium fluoride (DF) laser to shoot down missiles/mortarsShot down Lebanese Kaytusha rockets and artillery shells in 2006 war

Lebanese tactics to reduce effectiveness of laser systemReflective or heat-resistant coatings, dimplesModify geometry to lowest cross-section‘Spoofing’ trajectorySupersonic gaseous envelope cooling, like ‘hyper-cavitating torpedoes’

Modified AC-130U gunshipUses smaller 100 kW COILEmployed against high priority ground targets with minimal collateral damageTested summer 2009, successAir Force Scientific Advisory Board report says ATL has “no operational utility”

Is the ABL still a viable weapons system? Given the cost and alternatives, should it be treated as a relic of the Reagan Cold War era? Or is it still valuable as an aerial ABM solution?Should the DoD cut funding for this project and convert the laser to a smaller, ground-based platform? The research dollars to other laser research?Is the country well-protected with ground-based ABM systems and satellite launch detection? Does the ABM fill a gap in the ‘missile shield’?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1964310,00.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1250734/U-S-Star-Wars-laser-plane-shoots-ballistic-missile.htmlhttp://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weaponhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_iodine_laserhttp://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-03/how-it-works-airborne-laser-cannonhttp://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/http://www.airborne-laser.com/how_does_it_work.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_tactical_laserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_LaserAPS Report, ‘Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons.’ 1987.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U

Due to non-proliferation policies and the additional development of conventional weapons, nuclear weapons are projected to take a reduced role

Strategists still value nuclear warheads in certain situations: Widely dispersed targets Deep or heavily armored targets Mobile missiles

Bomb makes contact with soil or concrete and embeds itself

Delayed mechanism allows bomb to explode inside of target for more damage

Originally created during Cold War when Americans and Soviets began building bunkers at such depths to withstand surface thermonuclear explosions

To be used on underground weapon caches or bunkers.

Theoretically able to penetrate concrete up to 150 feet deep.

Explosion would create a shockwave intended to collapse subterranean structures

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory proposed modifying B83 nuclear warhead into a stronger and heavier casing

B83 warhead is incredibly powerful - 1.2 megatons (almost 100 times greater than Hiroshima bomb)

Others would be B61-11 warheads - about 340 kilotons

Fallout containment A 1 kiloton bomb (1/1000 of the proposed design) must be

buried 200 - 300 feet to contain fallout. RNEP much more powerful and would detonate at a

shallower depth Lenton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security

Administration: “the laws of physics will [never allow a bomb to penetrate] far

enough to trap all fallout. This is a nuclear weapon that is going to be hugely destructive over a large area.”

Models show a single blast claiming millions of lives due to explosion range and fallout effects

Effectiveness “Sterilization Zone” - Dome

of intense heat and radiation within ground near point of explosion Biological and chemical

weapon caches would have to be in this area to be effectively destroyed.

Otherwise, the explosion would effectively spread the toxins, especially if the amount of explosive debris is great.

Increased amount of collateral damage

Effectiveness Unknown nature of underground networks could

make utilization of the bomb inefficient Very deep or wide spread bunkers would either be

out of range or require multiple warheads to be used

Problems With Nuclear Bunker Busters

Astrophysicists warn that the asteroid Apophis could threaten planet around 2029.

Nuclear warheads could be used to knock an asteroid off of a collision path with the Earth.

Effectiveness is contingent upon amount of time.

Detonate a warhead next to the asteroid to cause a slight change in path

Depending on amount of time, change in lateral velocity of only 1 cm/s could cause the asteroid to miss by thousands of kilometers.

Detonate the warhead on or in the asteroid to cause it to shatter to many littler pieces.

Serious concerns about whether breaking up a single large body into many smaller ones would improve position.

Strategic changes Psychological effects of nuclear arsenal still exist Non-proliferation laws and the reduction of the

total number of nuclear weapons Hybridizing conventional and nuclear weapons to

create more efficient bombs and missiles

Reliable Replacement Warheads

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) currently has stockpiles of Cold-War era warheads. Projected yields inaccurate Reliability in question - duds possible Older materials pose a higher risk to weapons

handlers Security features could allow accidental or

unauthorized use

Less hazardous, more reliable nuclear warhead prototypes are being designed

Eventually, replacing the older warheads with the new would reduce the liability and safety issues

Would also increase the life-span of the weapons

Congressional criticism -potentially no need for any nuclear weapons at all

Do you think that tactical military weaponry will trend towards honing of nuclear warheads or further development of conventional bombs?

Do you think it is viable to develop nuclear weapons as an asteroid deterrent even if the threat of contact is very small?

Is it a better idea to outfit stockpiled nuclear with newer, safer warheads, or should they just be scrapped entirely?