It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DEWs(Russian Directed Energy Weapons)

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
reply to post by 1000hanz
 


Yet you cannot provide basic information on the production, procedures, and current status of such projects?

I have already provided information where lasers are going to be a major part of the US military in the coming decade, you have not shown that Russia is comparable, or head, on these very basic metrics that have been set as the standard for proof. Therefore, you lose.
I can only show you what the U.S.Gov/Mil "declassifies" so in the 80;s-90's we're told the same crap we hear today "U.S.A. is ahead of Russia, but then they declassifiy info showing Russia was ahead, so by now with what U.S. is coming up with, Russia has these things also in maore numbers than U.S., IT'S CALLED "LEARNING FROM HISTORY" so you do lose.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1000hanz
I can only show you what the U.S.Gov/Mil "declassifies"


Which you have yet to show.


so in the 80;s-90's we're told the same crap we hear today "U.S.A. is ahead of Russia,


All of the sources posted by you, are the same rehashed lines from 20 years ago... Nothing new... This anecdotal evidence, or 'proof' might be suffice for you, but you will need to bring sufficient evidence that backs your maligned claims to better justify your poor argument with me.


but then they declassifiy info showing Russia was ahead,


like?


so by now with what U.S. is coming up with, Russia has these things also in maore numbers than U.S.


Where is your proof? I doubt you have access to either US or Russian classifications, making your claim moot.


IT'S CALLED "LEARNING FROM HISTORY" so you do lose.


No, this has nothing to do with "learning from history," but rather everything to do with looking towards the future. By those metrics, and the standard set by the US to date, the US is the undisputed world leader.





[edit on 17-11-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Which you have yet to show.


We know both the US and Russian used direct energy weapons in the 70's to 'interfere' and or 'permanently damage' satellites so where on Earth did the idea originate that either countries would do away with these weapon systems when they can both we observed to be upgrading far more conventional systems? Just what type of logic would lead us to believe that Sam's and ICBMs are still deployed and diligently upgraded , despite financial hardship, but that Direct energy weapons were all scrapped?

Why do i have to 'prove' what is obvious when the following did not 'help' you in the past?


U.S. Fears Satellites Damaged
Peter G. Neumann
Sun 24 Jan 88 14:10:34-PST

Subtitle -- Soviets used lasers to cripple equipment, sources contend.

Washington, by Richard Sale (UPI, 24 January 1988).

U.S. intelligence agencies are convinced Soviet laser attacks have damaged
supersophisticated U.S. spy satellites deployed to monitor missile and
spacecraft launches, administration sources said. These sources said they
believe the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple optical equipment
attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam, the major Soviet space center, to
obtain a variety of sensitive military information. Administration
intelligence sources said they fear that other vital U.S. reconnaissance
satellites will soon be endangered because six new Soviet laser battle stations
are under construction...
"There is no way you can protect the optical sensors
on satellites" from laser attacks, an Air Force official said. ...

Intelligence sources acknowledged that the Pentagon also has trained
ground-based lasers on Soviet spacecraft, sometimes in attempts to disrupt
their sensors. ...

catless.ncl.ac.uk...


"Battle stations"?


One effect of the panic was the strengthening of U.S. satellites against
radiation that in the end would help shield them from ground-based laser
attacks. According to U.S. intelligence sources, who asked not to be named,
such attacks damaged super-sophisticated American spy satellites deployed to
monitor missile and spacecraft launches at the major Russian space center.

In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was "painted" by a Soviet laser
and sustained "permanent damage," according to a senior Air Force official.
This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s.

Air Force officials told UPI that for years the Soviets had a
"battle-ready" ground-based laser at Saryshagan that they said they believed
had been involved in past blindings of U.S. spacecraft.

But the result of the "hosings" of U.S. equipment was positive. The United
States moved quickly to install laser warning receivers on its newest
generation of low-orbit spacecraft, U.S. intelligence sources said. The
receivers have allowed time for evasive action and have assisted ground
controllers seeking to prove the Soviets had inflicted the damage.

One State Dept. analyst said that the whole Star Wars system of the Reagan
presidency was the result of Soviets "messing around with our satellites."

www.g2mil.com...


Again i say 1976. This is OLD news much like the following:


Manned seven crew. Deployed ERBS; performed high resolution Earth imagery. Payloads: Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) deployment, Office of Space and Terrestrial Applications (OSTA)-3 experiments, Large Format Camera (LFC). First use of Orbital Refueling System (ORS) with extravehicular activity (EVA) astronauts, IMAX camera. In response to the American Strategic Defence Initiative and continued military use of the shuttle, the Soviet Union fired a 'warning shot' from the Terra-3 laser complex at Sary Shagan. The facility tracked Challenger with a low power laser on 10 October 1984. This caused malfunctions to on-board equipment and discomfort / temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest.

www.astronautix.com...


Possibly the type of 'Malfunctions' and 'discomfort' that ripped apart the Challenger less than a year and a half later? I mean if your going to blame something blame the O-rings; who would check those for freeze damage any ways?


All of the sources posted by you, are the same rehashed lines from 20 years ago... Nothing new...


And you don't even acknowledge the facts of those era so why pretend that you would consider any newer more relevant data? You should at least be consistent!


This anecdotal evidence, or 'proof' might be suffice for you, but you will need to bring sufficient evidence that backs your maligned claims to better justify your poor argument with me.


Hell i wouldn't believe him either but he does use sources you could should do better than casually dismiss.


like?


The remarks of Teller and others that clearly says that the USSR led in direct energy weapon research by a decade or more. I mean it's just presumed that the US had caught up in the late 90's but as far as i can tell that's by no means a given. The Russian federation still after all deploys a National Ballistic missile defense system when the US does not so exactly what grounds do we have to believe that the money were spent where it should have been?


At the annual meeting of The American Civil Defense Association (TACDA) in Los Angeles, October, 1985, Dr. Teller stated that the U.S.
has made encouraging progress in research on x-ray lasers. But he believes the Soviets are a decade ahead of us in strategic defenses.

www.physiciansforcivildefense.org...



Where is your proof? I doubt you have access to either US or Russian classifications, making your claim moot.


I would have to agree. I have no idea how many either side deploys, what their sizes and capabilities are and how comparatively effective they are; in fact i wouldn't even know where to start looking.


No, this has nothing to do with "learning from history," but rather everything to do with looking towards the future.


And the future is built on the past. By not reflecting or even acknowledging our/their past achievements most arguments are quite senseless. Here is some of that past for your reflection:

[ex[ The Soviet militarys preparing to deploy a solid slate dyelaser systems designed to haw variable output wavelengths in order to complicate Western counter measures. Sustainedf dye laser techrwlogy provide* ihe key evidenceong-term interest in frequency-agilehe military wiT

specific systems for target acquisition, tracking, and blinding.

Soviets have proven, solid-state tunable dye laser technology ready for incorporation into military and civilian development programs. In addition to offering frequency agility, these solid-state dye lasers are rugged, reliable, and welt suited to battlefield, airborne, and spacebomeThe laser technology results from nearly two decades of military-sponsored research intended toariety of applications.in addition to the countermeasure-resistant target locator, include blinding systemsaser to damage enemy optical systems on the battlefield. The Soviets also arc interested in upgrading previouslymilitary laser systems to make them resistant to simple (single-frequency) counter measures J

www.faqs.org...:-TECHNOLOGY-AVAILABLE-FOR-FREQUENC.html


But until now civilian experts could only guess at its location, size, power and ultimate use. The new photographs, while not conclusive, suggest strongly that the site is for weapons research or is a prototype weapon itself, according to defense experts outside the Government.

The photographs were issued yesterday by a Swedish company, Space Media Network, which markets satellite images to news organizations. The photographs were taken by the French SPOT satellite, which orbits about 520 miles above the earth and can see ground objects as small as 10 meters in diameter.

Experts who examined the photographs said the Soviet site was clearly for military lasers. The question, they said, is whether the lasers are for research or could prove strong enough to damage space satellites and the rudimentary space-based weapons envisioned by the Reagan Administration for the first phase of its ''Star Wars'' antimissile defense.

They show a sprawling mountaintop complex, clearly not meant for civilian observatory work, that is replete with roads, buildings, laboratories and a battery of 10 domes to hold lasers and tracking telescopes. The site, 7,600 feet above sea level about 30 miles southeast of Dushanbe, the capital of the Tadzhik Republic, is surrounded by double fences and is linked by power lines to the 2,700-megawatt Nurek hydroelectric plant, one of the Soviet Union's largest, which is about nine miles to the northeast.

query.nytimes.com...


As you will see from reading the rest of the article no 'experiments' ( weapon deployments really but lets say 'experiments'of this size where taking place in the US of A just as Teller had indicated in 1985. I mean i am not stupidly suggesting that the US defense establishment couldn't be or that the science were that far behind but just that political games and scientific misdirection and deliberate mismanagement ensured that the US would be behind.


By those metrics, and the standard set by the US to date, the US is the undisputed world leader.


As the US seems to be in in just about every field according to your view. It's funny that people still think like this in the age of the Internet.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

As the US seems to be in in just about every field according to your view. It's funny that people still think like this in the age of the Internet.

Stellar


Lol and people like you believe every bit of supposition and post it as fact. Plain fact is the US has demonstrated the effectiveness of their solid state laser systems, whilst Russia just has shown nothing.
Every example you have shown is supposition about the Soviets using lasers to blind incredibly delicate optical sensors - so what? The have never destroyed a satellite with a laser or for that matter destroyed anything.

As for the source quoting Teller which you bring up in almost any discussion, he was wring about the utility of an X-Ray laser and so is probably also wrong about the Soviets being ahead.

PS. Lets face it you have no experience with anything you like to come across as an expert about. You have never served in the military let alone had any access to anything secret. Everything you know comes from the internet and anyone can form an argument for or against any subject using internet sources. But you do use the tactic of "dazzling with bull#" very well.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by mad scientist]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Lol and people like you believe every bit of supposition and post it as fact.


Please cite a example so i can defend it with more and/or 'better' links.
I do not believe every bit of 'supposition' ( i cited the links) and i would very much like to see links and or information as to why you think what i employed is merely 'supposition'.


Plain fact is the US has demonstrated the effectiveness of their solid state laser systems, whilst Russia just has shown nothing.


Cite examples please as i am not one to simply believe because it happens to be claimed by western/American scientist.


Every example you have shown is supposition about the Soviets using lasers to blind incredibly delicate optical sensors - so what?


I just now cited a example where a satellite was in fact 'permanently' damaged back in the late 70's and YOU are the one supposing that it was merely electro-optical equipment that were destroyed/damaged. Can you explain how a laser or direct energy weapon makes the crew of the space shuttle feel 'discomfort' other than with rather high energy levels or with some type of ionizing radiation?


The have never destroyed a satellite with a laser or for that matter destroyed anything


Please prove that then.


As for the source quoting Teller which you bring up in almost any discussion, he was wring about the utility of an X-Ray laser and so is probably also wrong about the Soviets being ahead.


Right because when you disagree with someone they MUST be wrong? I mean where does that type of arrogance come from? Can't you at least cite examples of American scientist who disagrees with teller's analysis?


PS. Lets face it you have no experience with anything you like to come across as an expert about.


I have never claimed to be a expert at something hence my complete reliance on employing sources at every turn. You on the other hand presume everything you say to be fact hence the complete absence of sources. It's strange then that i am called the 'expert' when i tediously try to show why i am saying what i believe to be true.


You have never served in the military let alone had any access to anything secret.


Why claimed that anything i said were in fact massive secrets? Didn't you read the NY Times article i just used? Don't you even begin to realise that these things i am trying to bring to attention on this board are 'open' secrets in that they have been discussed in main stream media? Where do you get off claiming that i am the one appealing to 'conspiracy' when i keep citing sources which you keep dismissing, without sources, as mere supposition as if you have superior knowledge you 'cant' share'? Isn't that terribly immature?


Everything you know comes from the internet and anyone can form an argument for or against any subject using internet sources.


Should i fax you my arguments and photo copy pages from books and magazines instead? I am already jumping through virtual hoops here so what do you want other than for me to just shut up and stop disturbing your misinformed malaise?


But you do use the tactic of "dazzling with bull#" very well.


I suppose it seems 'dazzling' when one doesn't actually read the sources and investigate all counter arguments made in other magazines and defense papers but since you wont go the trouble of properly defending YOUR believes that's what they will stay.

I am sorry if this is so upsetting to you that a nation other than the US can build and deploy direct energy weapons and then decades ago. I apologise for bringing this to such a utterly partial and uninterested party.

Stellar

[edit on 19-11-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
As the US seems to be in in just about every field according to your view. It's funny that people still think like this in the age of the Internet.

Stellar


In the scientific, and technological fields, yes. The US is the undisputed world leader. This should come as no surprise.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
During the Apartheid years, my Father was working for several government organizations in South Africa including G.O.S and some underground secret police organizations. He had recounted the directed energy weapons developed by the South African goverment at the time. A weapon small enough to be mounted on a small fighter plane like the mirage of the time. He had also given me details of a UFO that was shot down by this laser system (Thor) over the kalahari desert in 1989. The UFO and the two recovered Aliens were handed over to the Americans during the same year. The Americans however, upon learning about the THOR laser system, tried every trick in the cold war book to get the SA government to hand the technology over. They also learned about a highly advanced (more advanced than anything the US ever had) ICBM and nuclear weapons system developed in South Africa. They had threatened SA with even more economic santions but since SA was fully self sufficient, this did not scare the government. In the end this technology was dismanteled before power was handed over to the ANC government to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
It's difficult to take anything on this board seriously anymore.

Anyway:
Don't bother arguing with Stellar. He believes what he believes, and many other people have tried before you to point out that most of his beliefs are irrational or far-fetched.

And to the person above me - Regrettably, either you or your father are a liar. Nothing in what you said is true by the farthest stretch of the imagination. I'm American, so you can call me biased and unable to believe in anything but my own countries superiority like Stellar likely would, but if you don't see the holes in that story, I can't help you.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
HI Iblis,

reply to post by Iblis
 


It IS difficult ( am i getting old enough to start believing that things used to be not only different but , better?) but then for this former there has always been plenty to get one concerned for either the sanity of the theorist or the dull witted mind numbing dullness of some conservative minds who somehow ended up on ATS!

As for the last posters comments about South-Africa i have never heard anything like that ( but then again i never had any reason to consider it given the performance of the SAAF) and i don't know of anyone important enough to be believed in claiming as much....

As for the laser stuff we have gone round the block a few times and since i am getting older and less interested in spending time i don't have in defense of views that have only so much relevance in my daily life now is probably a good time for you to use the opportunity to continue the slander in my absence.

Hope it's satisfying but if not do send me a private message if there is some details ( on some issue) that you would actually like to discuss. Since i do change my mind and do apologise for errors pointed out to me you might get even more satisfaction from trying to engage a bit more constructively.

Cheers,

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
you guys are just shooting down Stellarx because you dont believe the links. Is this what ats has turned into? What happened to deny ignorance?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tomcat ha
 


why we should believe in the links



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
im not saying you have to, but you just dismiss it without any basis at all.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join