[ableChair]

And you don't need 10^16 W to knock down a missle

Oh really? Then why does every scientist that worked on it disagree with you? Why was SDI so difficult to achieve, then? If it's that easy then why weren't you working for them? Now, of course, at point blank range you certainly don't need 10 exp 16 watts which just makes my point. Where is all that energy going? It's dissipating enroute, dumb-a$%.

[AdamSelene235]

Oh really? Then why does every scientist that worked on it disagree with you? Why was SDI so difficult to achieve, then? If it's that easy then why weren't you working for them? Now, of course, at point blank range you certainly don't need 10 exp 16 watts which just makes my point. Where is all that energy going? It's dissipating enroute, dumb-a$%.

Driving an X-ray laser, much less an array of X-ray lasers with a nuke, is, well, hard.

Teller's brilliant pebbles idea was better, but one of the best interception techniques is what Moscow is rumored to have, nuke tipped interceptors.

The chemical laser needed to make SDI a reality have only recently matured.

[El Gato]

Where is all that energy going? It's dissipating enroute, dumb-a$%.

No it's not. Oh some of it is scattering outside the direct path to the target, but if any signifigent amount were heating the air it would cause the laser to "bloom". That's part of the reason they need high power, but short pulses for SDI work. But even then, only a very small fraction of the laser energy goes to heating the air, although it's enough to disrupt the path. The short pulse gets through before the atmosphere has time to react to being heated.