Wait, we have gigawatt lasers ready to go now ?
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:52:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Wait, we have gigawatt lasers ready to go now ?
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of
existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I wouldn't know.
I don't know. I do remember, back when Ronald Reagan was talking about the >Strategic Defense Initiative, _Scientific American_ criticized it, saying >that the computer technology needed to make it work simply did not exist.
Well, today, the technology used in the video cards in home computers...
is powering the AI revolution. So just maybe the biggest obstacle to a >missile shield has been overcome.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of >existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I >wouldn't know.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:52:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Wait, we have gigawatt lasers ready to go now ?
I don't know.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:52:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:Ah ... /Scientific American/. I read that for years.
Wait, we have gigawatt lasers ready to go now ?
I don't know. I do remember, back when Ronald Reagan was talking about the >Strategic Defense Initiative, _Scientific American_ criticized it, saying >that the computer technology needed to make it work simply did not exist.
Well, today, the technology used in the video cards in home computers...If you say so. I, myself, never having implemented a space-based
is powering the AI revolution. So just maybe the biggest obstacle to a >missile shield has been overcome.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of >existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I >wouldn't know.As you yourself note below, even megawatt lasers are not available.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 01:32:38 -0000 (UTC), quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:52:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Wait, we have gigawatt lasers ready to go now ?
I don't know. I do remember, back when Ronald Reagan was talking about the >> Strategic Defense Initiative, _Scientific American_ criticized it, saying
that the computer technology needed to make it work simply did not exist.
Ah ... /Scientific American/. I read that for years.
I gave up when
-- they fired a guy for opposing abortion; his job was to select and
edit (for coherence) submissions to an amateur scientist column
-- they started putting a long article at the start of each issue
trying to foretell the future -- reading tea leaves is /not/ part of
the scientific method
I ignored for years the minor detail that whenever they published an
article on a topic I actually knew something about, it was a very
general article indeed, and the implication that all the articles were
like that.
Well, today, the technology used in the video cards in home computers...
is powering the AI revolution. So just maybe the biggest obstacle to a
missile shield has been overcome.
If you say so. I, myself, never having implemented a space-based
missile shield, have no idea if current computer tech is actually up
to the job.
And you /really/ want to trust an ARMED SYSTEM to an AI? Have you
never read any Science Fiction on this topic at all? This is a /very/
bad idea.
Like atomic reactors, space-based defense systems need to be managed /exclusively/ by human beings who actually know what they are doing.
As opposed to, say, your standard MBA -- and a standard MBA would be a
far better choice than an AI.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of
existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I
wouldn't know.
As you yourself note below, even megawatt lasers are not available.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of
existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I
wouldn't know.
As you yourself note below, even megawatt lasers are not available.
"War Department declares Golden Shield missile defense system ready to
be built: rCyShovel readyrCO"
https://justthenews.com/government/security/department-war-advancing- defensive-technologies-against-missiles-other-aerial
"The department called it a "layered, integrated shield" that will
defend the U.S. against ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles,
advanced cruise missiles and next-generation aerial attacks."
-a-a https://x.com/DoWCTO
Wait, we have gigawatt lasers ready to go now ?
Hat tip to:
-a-a https://thelibertydaily.com/
Lynn
On 4/28/2026 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:Unless, of course, they were DOGE'd,
"War Department declares Golden Shield missile defense system ready to
be built: aShovel readyA"
https://justthenews.com/government/security/department-war-advancing-
defensive-technologies-against-missiles-other-aerial
"The department called it a "layered, integrated shield" that will
defend the U.S. against ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles,
advanced cruise missiles and next-generation aerial attacks."
aa https://x.com/DoWCTO
Wait, we have gigawatt lasers ready to go now ?
Hat tip to:
aa https://thelibertydaily.com/
Lynn
No lasers at this time other than communication lasers like Starlink uses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system)
So, we need gigawatt sustained power lasers for both missile defense
shield and fusion reactors. Looks like a good research project for MIT, >Texas A&M, Stanford, and a few other excellent universities. I'll bet
most of them already have laser research projects going.
Looks like SpaceX will be launching many thousands of satellites in the
next few years.
On 5/12/2026 11:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo: leadup to The Rise of the Machines>
And you /really/ want to trust an ARMED SYSTEM to an AI? Have you
never read any Science Fiction on this topic at all? This is a /very/
bad idea.
Like atomic reactors, space-based defense systems need to be managed
/exclusively/ by human beings who actually know what they are doing.
As opposed to, say, your standard MBA -- and a standard MBA would be a
far better choice than an AI.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of
existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I >>> wouldn't know.
As you yourself note below, even megawatt lasers are not available.
We're moving in the direction of autonomous AI targetting rapidly.Better be a very strong lock, one with no key, or we'll eventually be
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/magazine/ukraine-ai-drones-war-russia.html
Not fully autonomous, these will can be locked onto a moving
target by a human operator from will beyond jamming range, and
then swoop in for the kill by themselves.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:22:54 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 11:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo: leadup to The Rise of the Machines>
And you /really/ want to trust an ARMED SYSTEM to an AI? Have you
never read any Science Fiction on this topic at all? This is a /very/
bad idea.
Like atomic reactors, space-based defense systems need to be managed
/exclusively/ by human beings who actually know what they are doing.
As opposed to, say, your standard MBA -- and a standard MBA would be a
far better choice than an AI.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of
existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I >>>> wouldn't know.
As you yourself note below, even megawatt lasers are not available.
We're moving in the direction of autonomous AI targetting rapidly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/magazine/ukraine-ai-drones-war-russia.html
Not fully autonomous, these will can be locked onto a moving
target by a human operator from will beyond jamming range, and
then swoop in for the kill by themselves.
Better be a very strong lock, one with no key, or we'll eventually be
reading about one attacking a civilian airliner. With lots of excuses.
On 5/13/2026 11:40 AM, Paul S Person wrote:But were they "locked on" a valid target?
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:22:54 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 11:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo: leadup to The Rise of the Machines>
And you /really/ want to trust an ARMED SYSTEM to an AI? Have you
never read any Science Fiction on this topic at all? This is a /very/
bad idea.
Like atomic reactors, space-based defense systems need to be managed
/exclusively/ by human beings who actually know what they are doing.
As opposed to, say, your standard MBA -- and a standard MBA would be a >>>> far better choice than an AI.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of >>>>> existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I >>>>> wouldn't know.
As you yourself note below, even megawatt lasers are not available.
We're moving in the direction of autonomous AI targetting rapidly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/magazine/ukraine-ai-drones-war-russia.html
Not fully autonomous, these will can be locked onto a moving
target by a human operator from will beyond jamming range, and
then swoop in for the kill by themselves.
Better be a very strong lock, one with no key, or we'll eventually be
reading about one attacking a civilian airliner. With lots of excuses.
You don't need an AI to do that.
In 1983, the Soviets shot down Korean Air 007, 269 killed.
in 1988 that US shot down a civilian Iranian airliner. 290 dead.
In 2014, Russian troops show down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine.
298 killed.
Humans make errors too. The question is: which is more reliable.
On Wed, 13 May 2026 14:57:06 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/13/2026 11:40 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:22:54 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 11:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo: leadup to The Rise of the Machines>
And you /really/ want to trust an ARMED SYSTEM to an AI? Have you
never read any Science Fiction on this topic at all? This is a /very/ >>>>> bad idea.
Like atomic reactors, space-based defense systems need to be managed >>>>> /exclusively/ by human beings who actually know what they are doing. >>>>> As opposed to, say, your standard MBA -- and a standard MBA would be a >>>>> far better choice than an AI.
And either they can build gigawatt lasers with a modest extension of >>>>>> existing technology - or they can manage with megawatt lasers somehow. I >>>>>> wouldn't know.
As you yourself note below, even megawatt lasers are not available.
We're moving in the direction of autonomous AI targetting rapidly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/magazine/ukraine-ai-drones-war-russia.html
Not fully autonomous, these will can be locked onto a moving
target by a human operator from will beyond jamming range, and
then swoop in for the kill by themselves.
Better be a very strong lock, one with no key, or we'll eventually be
reading about one attacking a civilian airliner. With lots of excuses.
You don't need an AI to do that.
In 1983, the Soviets shot down Korean Air 007, 269 killed.
in 1988 that US shot down a civilian Iranian airliner. 290 dead.
In 2014, Russian troops show down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine.
298 killed.
Humans make errors too. The question is: which is more reliable.
But were they "locked on" a valid target?
And the fact that people make mistakes does /not/ justify allowing AI
to make them. To err is /human/ -- it cannot be allowed to AI.
You've said this before, in regard to self-driving cars.
Again: If it performs *better* than humans, it can, and
should be used. Fewer of the wrong targets will be hit,
and that's better than letting people die.
Justify requiring perfection, please.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
You've said this before, in regard to self-driving cars.
Again: If it performs *better* than humans, it can, and
should be used. Fewer of the wrong targets will be hit,
and that's better than letting people die.
Justify requiring perfection, please.
People psychologically will not accept it. People expect machines to be perfect in ways that humans are not. This is how we wound up with the
mess of the current air traffic control system.
On 5/14/2026 3:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:And yet, what is the Golden Shield but Skynet under a new name, at
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
You've said this before, in regard to self-driving cars.
Again: If it performs *better* than humans, it can, and
should be used. Fewer of the wrong targets will be hit,
and that's better than letting people die.
Justify requiring perfection, please.
People psychologically will not accept it. People expect machines to be
perfect in ways that humans are not. This is how we wound up with the
mess of the current air traffic control system.
Some won't accept it. I have no doubt that there will be a few
horrible accidents where a human might well have avoided it. But
the numbers count.
The insurance businesses has no such qualms.
When they offer lower rates to people who consistently use automated
driving, many will be persuaded.
Similarly, when the military find they are more effective at completing >missions by using AI autonomous weapons, they will do so. Needs must....
Yes, I'm afraid of the 'Wargames' scenario. AFAICT, all the military are
too, and will not turn over control to WHOPPR.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:13:33 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,323 |