The Weaponized Laser

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 19, 2009

So. I've long had a story on the back burner that had as a major plot point and later historical element the invention of a working weaponized laser gun, which may or may not be used to support a micronation movement sponsored by a fictional, renegade defense contractor that was originally based in the US.

For various reasons, I haven't worked on it in a while. But on November 14, 2008, Northrop Grumman announced the FIRESTRIKE modular, solid state laser system, which they claim is able to produce a battle-feild relevent 100kW laser. So, in light of this, I'm considering re-booting my project. The main question I have is whether or not anyone finds this development as relevant to the sci-fi genre. Other questions include: The value of a product monopoly to a micronation seeking diplomatic recognition on the basis of the constitutive theory of statehood, as opposed to the declarative theory of statehood set forth in the montevideo convention; the value of a product monopoly against much larger conventional armies employed by currently recognized states; and the validity of high treason charges in retaliation for the fictional defense contractor defecting to the currently unrecognized micro-nation.

But I'd also be interested in a general discussion of using lasers in sci-fi.
*cough*bracesforde-rail

*cough*

Dommo · Feb 19, 2009

I don't think even a weaponized laser could carry enough weight to pull it off. Sure it's an impressive piece of tech, but it's not a total game changer.

Now if we were to have something on par in power with a nuclear weapon or something, THEN you might be able to achieve nationhood through this kind action.

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 19, 2009

Dommo said:
I don't think even a weaponized laser could carry enough weight to pull it off. Sure it's an impressive piece of tech, but it's not a total game changer.

Now if we were to have something on par in power with a nuclear weapon or something, THEN you might be able to achieve nationhood through this kind action.

What about rail-guns? (This story impinges upon alternate history, so even though the US navy and others currently have some pretty fantastic development in this area, that could be rearranged for the story.) Though the laser would still be involved.

I've done a fair amount of research into micro-nations, so I know that there are plenty of other factors that could be involved--both alone and in combinaton--to increase the chances that this nation is recognized. But for story purposes, a certain military advantage would be necessary (though not exclusively), even if only for defensive reasons.

Dommo · Feb 19, 2009

Even railguns aren't powerful enough to do it.

You want something a few orders of magnitude greater, or at the least totally game changing.

An example might be an EMP type weapon, that is effective but requires no truly sophisticated materials, just complex construction(e.g. it's not hard to find the stuff to make it, but it's hard to actually build one).

That's the real trouble here. Railguns as awesome as they are, don't really change the picture of warfare. They're merely an improvement over what we've already got. A true EMP type of weapon on the other hand, might not kill many people, but could do catastrophic damage to the economies of nations, and depending on how it was done(suppose a weapon did something similar, but in a different way, which made it harder to shield electronics) might force militaries to have to go back to more mechanical types of systems.

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 19, 2009

The micro-nation isn't full of terrorists. It's more full of scientists and romantics. The latter being the most common in real-world micronations.

The micronation, as is common with many territorial micro-nations (as opposed to those existing in cyberspace or claiming extraterritorial status in their mother countries), is located in international waters (somewhere off the coast of the United States). It is based on an artificial island originally used by the sponsor company as a testing site; and beyond that, it uses a conglomeration of modular floating buildings for living and agriculture purposes.

The difference in tech is more to make up for military disparity than to go conquer other countries. For example, if there were to be an air raid, the only necessity is to knock out the aircraft before any bombing or strafing would occur. With current technology in lasers and rail-guns, this is already possible. The technology is used against attacking military targets. Current estimates for rail-gun specs are around a 200-mile range and up to 64 million kJ of kinetic energy. Currently tested weapons have achieved 10.2 million kJ. The estimated energy and distance are accompanied by a projected velocity of 3000m/s using, iirc, a 3.2 kilogram tungsten projectile. Currently tested devices have reached around Mach 7 for a 7-pound aluminum projectile. That's some pretty scary stuff, though I agree that it is not necessarily "game-changing".

So, if the micro-nation were to start acting as if it had authority within it's "sovereign territory", such as capturing tresspassing vessels, or issuing passports and retaliating against it's citizens being detained (not necessarily involving war declarations), how would it having a monopoly on laser and/or advanced railgun technology affect the response of the other nations involved?

Histry Nerd · Feb 19, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
So, if the micro-nation were to start acting as if it had authority within it's "sovereign territory", such as capturing tresspassing vessels, or issuing passports and retaliating against it's citizens being detained (not necessarily involving war declarations), how would it having a monopoly on laser and/or advanced railgun technology affect the response of the other nations involved?

Interesting premise, Liosse.

Off the top of my head, I'd say economics would play a large part in determining the involved nations' reactions. If your micro-nation sits near (as in, can bring its nifty weapons to bear on) any major shipping or air-traffic lanes, or can threaten a major offshore oil field, I'd say it has a problem. The least destructive reaction it could expect would be a Special Ops raid to disable the weapon--and if the first one didn't work, expect more and more destructive tactics until something does. Other options might be trade embargoes and/or naval blockades of escalating degrees of aggressiveness (as in, do they stop approaching ships, seize them, or sink them?).

If the micro-nation does not present a direct threat to the U.S. economy, it probably has a good shot--if the U.S. can arrange preferential trading terms, make it dependent on the U.S. for necessities and securing first cut at any new gizmos--why, I'd say it's well on its way to gaining the U.S. as an ally.

For what it's worth.
HN

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 19, 2009

Histry Nerd said:
Interesting premise, Liosse.

Off the top of my head, I'd say economics would play a large part in determining the involved nations' reactions. If your micro-nation sits near (as in, can bring its nifty weapons to bear on) any major shipping or air-traffic lanes, or can threaten a major offshore oil field, I'd say it has a problem. The least destructive reaction it could expect would be a Special Ops raid to disable the weapon--and if the first one didn't work, expect more and more destructive tactics until something does. Other options might be trade embargoes and/or naval blockades of escalating degrees of aggressiveness (as in, do they stop approaching ships, seize them, or sink them?).

If the micro-nation does not present a direct threat to the U.S. economy, it probably has a good shot--if the U.S. can arrange preferential trading terms, make it dependent on the U.S. for necessities and securing first cut at any new gizmos--why, I'd say it's well on its way to gaining the U.S. as an ally.

For what it's worth.
HN

Looks like there's some serious research on the horizon.

I would not think sinking approaching ships would be productive for the nation. But you probably mean what do the naval blockades do. Well, it would probably depend on how serious the threat is. I'm not sure yet. But something for the blockade to consider is that with a two hundred mile range (though I think this involves some really crazy trajectories that might lessen the proposed range in terms of whether satellite guidance is available, the argument being that a two-hundred mile shot requires something like 98 vertical miles for the ballistic trajectory), one of the micro-nation's rail-guns would pose a pretty big threat. Being sponsored by a defense contractor, the micro-nation would have access to a lot of cutting edge technology, but it would not necessarily have the same ability to produce large runs of end-product, especially if it has given up/lost access to any mainland production facilities by declaring independence. The idea of production facilities also brings up the question of whether they would claim rights to any company property in the US, whether as extra-territorial zones or independent "colonies" of their country's mainland. And if and how they wuld support these claims, whether militarily or otherwise. E.g., tax evasion, or other economic and personal forms of civil disobedience.

As for the non-threat scenario, I'm not sure I want to go to the extent of traing off their cutting edge technology, but if they have developed something better, there would likely not be an argument against selling things that are "out-dated" from their perspective, but really innovative to other countries. This also brings the added conflict of how do they stay ahead of the US or another economically and scientifically powerful country as a "trading partner". It would be much to the US's advantage to try and catch up with and then surpass this country's program. Why pay exorbitant rates for something you can do yourself. So the question becomes how to make a profit and maintain some form of useful relationship, but without keeping "state" secrets. So relevancy as a factor in recognition of sovereignity would be a very interesting area to explore.

Dommo · Feb 19, 2009

Well there's a few aspects of this hypothesis that need to be addressed.

1. How threatening is this micronation? If it has the potential to be an actual threat it'll probably be squelched before it ever amount anything. Getting established will probably be the biggest feat.

2. If it is established, how self sufficient is it? If it has advanced tech, but lacks the resources to produce its own food, or other necessities, it'll be hamstrung by the outside world, UNLESS it has a true trump card that it can threaten everyone with(e.g. north korea and nukes). The rest of the world can simply choke it off from resources and money.

3. How much of a lead does it have? Even if this nation had rail guns and lasers right now, the US government with the resources at hand, and seeing someone else have them, will easily achieve technological parity in short period of time. This is simply because we've got 10,000x the resources to throw into solving the problem.

Those are just a few questions to raise.

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 20, 2009

Dommo said:
Well there's a few aspects of this hypothesis that need to be addressed.

1. How threatening is this micronation? If it has the potential to be an actual threat it'll probably be squelched before it ever amount anything. Getting established will probably be the biggest feat.

2. If it is established, how self sufficient is it? If it has advanced tech, but lacks the resources to produce its own food, or other necessities, it'll be hamstrung by the outside world, UNLESS it has a true trump card that it can threaten everyone with(e.g. north korea and nukes). The rest of the world can simply choke it off from resources and money.

3. How much of a lead does it have? Even if this nation had rail guns and lasers right now, the US government with the resources at hand, and seeing someone else have them, will easily achieve technological parity in short period of time. This is simply because we've got 10,000x the resources to throw into solving the problem.

Those are just a few questions to raise.

The first two are very common micronational issues.

For instance, a historical example of #1 is the Republic of Minerva, which so scared neighboring countries such as Australia, that they had a conference where Tonga made claim over what were essentially built up reefs and attacked the "country". I'm thinking that, originally, it is either not a threat, or chooses not to act like one. For example, I may wnat to have it hold off on siezing shipping until it is actually established. It would also likely start out as not near any commonly used shipping lanes, since the main island was built for weapons research, and so you don't want every ship crossing the pond to run across it.

In terms of self-sufficiency, it would probably start off reliant on supplies procured from the US, though it would eventually become far more self-sufficient as chances became available to expand it's artificial territory. I may have to do some serious fishing research, as well as research on large scale hydroponics and artificial soil in terms of food. Energy self-sufficiency would probably be already there, since running cables across a large stretch of ocean would be inefficient if not (likely) unfeasible. But the real issue here would be industrial/military supplies. Even if the country could corrdinate large-scale alvage operations, getting its hands on high-quality metals and such would be tough. Definitely an area to look at more closely.

If in the alternate timeline, the defense contractor who is basically forming this micro-nation is either the sole, or more likely lead research and development team in terms of these two technologies, then they might have enough of a lead to last twenty or thirty years, which may or may not be enough time to become established. The current US navy railgun program is estimated to need at least fifteen more years until an actual ship could be outfitted with a useful railgun. If I start this contractor off a little earlier, it could conceivably get a fair advantage in terms of time.

Thanks for all the questions, Dommo.

GeorgeK · Feb 20, 2009

Wouldn't a single submarine be able to take out this glorified boat? I can't imagine rail guns or lasers being all that effective under water.

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 20, 2009

GeorgeK said:
Wouldn't a single submarine be able to take out this glorified boat? I can't imagine rail guns or lasers being all that effective under water.

Haha... Good question. Yes, that is certainly a real issue. I've got so much impending research on the table. I would think that the general detection technology would be easily available to this micronation, but I'd have to do more research in terms of submarine warfare to know if there are easily available countermeasures. Or what kind of construction would make the island most resistant to submarine attacks. It's unlikely the micronation would have access to enough subs (if any) to defend against them in that way. And mines/depth charges, for instance, would be almost as dangerous to the island as to a sub if they're close enough. This problem also figures into the question of whether or not the nation poses enough of a threat to warrant such measures by other countries.

GeorgeK · Feb 20, 2009

If they have some tech monopoly, they're probably going to be wealthy. They could pretend to just be some rich playboy and buy an island from a poor country with the stipulation that the first country recind all rights to the land forever and go through diplomatic channels in the UN to be recognized before they announce that they have the military tech. Then they'd have a port for their big boat where they could build a fortified marina if need be etc

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 20, 2009

They probably could buy an island... I guess.

But the UN channels thing won't work. There has never been a micron-nation, even with actual land as territory, that has recieved recognition from the UN. Ever.

But the fortifications from an actual island might be useful.

Ruv Draba · Feb 20, 2009

So, you and your fellows get together and form a micronation, presumably to pursue some dissident social agenda. You have some scientific IP that's both valuable and threatening and would like to parlay this to gain some recognition. Presumably, established government interests oppose your agenda, and of course both private and public interests will want your technology.

Going alone will be hard, so ideally, you'll want to become a protectorate of some more powerful country. One of the smaller protectorates in the world, for example, is the island of Niue, with around 1700 people -- a veritable superpower among micronations.

So how do protectorates form?

Protectorates can be formed for moral reasons (e.g. another nation supports your social agenda), or as a ploy in a bigger and shifting game of diplomatic relations. One path you'll want to avoid though is selling your IP for protectorate status. Do that and you'll become a de facto colony of the protecting nation -- tame scientists who can no longer pursue their social agenda.

So let's look at three options: moral protectorate, diplomatic protectorate and going it alone.

Moral protectorate: For reasons of ideology, another nation supports you to the point of making you a protectorate. Its international reputation is committed to your defence; it commits forces to regular patrols -- no strings attached. Huzzah -- your laser technology is no longer needed for defence! It can either be licensed for revenue to support your economic viability, propaganda activities and other diplomatic finagling, or committed to aggressive/terrorist uses in the interest of Changing the World. But who is really wearing the pants in the relationship? Woe betide if your social agenda begins to differ from theirs...

Diplomatic protectorate: A nation makes you their protectorate because it's going to tick another nation off. They want that nation to threaten you, rant about you, bully you because it's in their national interests that they do so. You will definitely need your laser for protection here because your big brother will be at best a fair weather friend, using you as a political bone in its own international squabbling. In the meantime though, you have to run your economy so you need to either be self-sufficient or have something worthwhile to trade. Tourism probably is not the best way to go because tourists can steal your great National Secret; the chances are that as a diplomatic protectorate with a great National Secret you'll be xenophobic and more than a bit paranoid. That's not a bad combination for starting an off-shore tax haven for organised crime though.

Going it alone: Unless you have alien powers or are the only mages or superheroes in the world, I'd say that you're doomed. Your social agenda will irritate many nations; your IP will be coveted by most of them. You can't afford to trade away your secret because it protects your social agenda. So you have to lock up your IP in defence. Forget all the invasion and espionage attempts they'll throw at you. What's worse is that they'll commit their huge economies to obliterating your tiny economy. They'll blockade you, run trade sanctions against you. Whatever you need that you can't supply yourself -- be it xenon coolant, copper wire, toothpaste or roofing tiles, you won't get it except by smugglers, because some grumpy country will be sitting over your horizon or behind concrete on roads you don't own, keeping trade out. And smugglers will want pay, and what will you pay them with? Laser eye surgery? And of course, other nations will eventually overtake your secret because their R&D output will vastly exceed yours.

There's nothing to say that your micronation's history mightn't include all three, though: going it alone, becoming a moral protectorate, then a diplomatic protectorate, then being destroyed. Or if you like the happy ending, swap the moral and diplomatic protectoracies around and let it continue indefinitely.

Or how about a bittersweet ending where it's destroyed but kicks off global social change?

In terms of hooking motive to setting (and thus enabling plot), the obvious way is to link personal motive to social agenda. Social agendas could take many forms: political ideologies, ethnic relations, religious beliefs, environmental concerns, moral differences... people can have all manner of interesting motives to support fringe agendas: idealism, disaffection, ethnic or religious identity, boredom, blackmail, love, greed, hate... And differing motives can lead to internal conflicts too.

Hope this helps.

GeorgeK · Feb 20, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
They probably could buy an island... I guess.

But the UN channels thing won't work. There has never been a micron-nation, even with actual land as territory, that has recieved recognition from the UN. Ever.

But the fortifications from an actual island might be useful.

The Vatican?

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 20, 2009

GeorgeK said:
The Vatican?

Ha. Forgot them. Yes, that is an example... sort of. If you look at its history, it was not exactly a micro-nation to begin with. Consider the Papal States which were under the direct rule of the Pope until something like 1870. The Vatican exists because the Pope traded his temporal authority to Italy in exchange for recognition. It is also important to remember that the Vatican is not a member of the UN, but only a permanent observer. The main distinction being that it does not have a vote.

However, a modern micronation would have little to offer in return for such recognition, nor would it usually have any legitimate claim to such recognition.

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 20, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
So, you and your fellows get together and form a micronation, presumably to pursue some dissident social agenda. You have some scientific IP that's both valuable and threatening and would like to parlay this to gain some recognition. Presumably, established government interests oppose your agenda, and of course both private and public interests will want your technology.

Going alone will be hard, so ideally, you'll want to become a protectorate of some more powerful country. One of the smaller protectorates in the world, for example, is the island of Niue, with around 1700 people -- a veritable superpower among micronations.

So how do protectorates form?

Protectorates can be formed for moral reasons (e.g. another nation supports your social agenda), or as a ploy in a bigger and shifting game of diplomatic relations. One path you'll want to avoid though is selling your IP for protectorate status. Do that and you'll become a de facto colony of the protecting nation -- tame scientists who can no longer pursue their social agenda.

So let's look at three options: moral protectorate, diplomatic protectorate and going it alone.

Moral protectorate: For reasons of ideology, another nation supports you to the point of making you a protectorate. Its international reputation is committed to your defence; it commits forces to regular patrols -- no strings attached. Huzzah -- your laser technology is no longer needed for defence! It can either be licensed for revenue to support your economic viability, propaganda activities and other diplomatic finagling, or committed to aggressive/terrorist uses in the interest of Changing the World. But who is really wearing the pants in the relationship? Woe betide if your social agenda begins to differ from theirs...

Diplomatic protectorate: A nation makes you their protectorate because it's going to tick another nation off. They want that nation to threaten you, rant about you, bully you because it's in their national interests that they do so. You will definitely need your laser for protection here because your big brother will be at best a fair weather friend, using you as a political bone in its own international squabbling. In the meantime though, you have to run your economy so you need to either be self-sufficient or have something worthwhile to trade. Tourism probably is not the best way to go because tourists can steal your great National Secret; the chances are that as a diplomatic protectorate with a great National Secret you'll be xenophobic and more than a bit paranoid. That's not a bad combination for starting an off-shore tax haven for organised crime though.

Going it alone: Unless you have alien powers or are the only mages or superheroes in the world, I'd say that you're doomed. Your social agenda will irritate many nations; your IP will be coveted by most of them. You can't afford to trade away your secret because it protects your social agenda. So you have to lock up your IP in defence. Forget all the invasion and espionage attempts they'll throw at you. What's worse is that they'll commit their huge economies to obliterating your tiny economy. They'll blockade you, run trade sanctions against you. Whatever you need that you can't supply yourself -- be it xenon coolant, copper wire, toothpaste or roofing tiles, you won't get it except by smugglers, because some grumpy country will be sitting over your horizon or behind concrete on roads you don't own, keeping trade out. And smugglers will want pay, and what will you pay them with? Laser eye surgery? And of course, other nations will eventually overtake your secret because their R&D output will vastly exceed yours.

There's nothing to say that your micronation's history mightn't include all three, though: going it alone, becoming a moral protectorate, then a diplomatic protectorate, then being destroyed. Or if you like the happy ending, swap the moral and diplomatic protectoracies around and let it continue indefinitely. Or how about a bittersweet ending where it's destroyed but kicks off global social change?

In terms of hooking motive to setting (and thus enabling plot), the obvious way is to link personal motive to social agenda. Social agendas could take many forms: political ideologies, ethnic relations, religious beliefs, environmental concerns, moral differences... people can have all manner of interesting motives to support fringe agendas: idealism, disaffection, ethnic or religious identity, boredom, blackmail, love, greed, hate... And differing motives can lead to internal conflicts too.

Hope this helps.

Actually, it was very helpful Ruv. I forgot all about protectorates. It's really funny about that superheroes thing in the "Going it alone" section. No, they are not superheroes--but this micronation does support some amount of genetic and biological research and expiramentation on humans, and this is at odds with the moral ideals of many countries. On the other hand, this does not greatly affect its public image until much later than the laser and maggun research. Global change comes in another form, and until it occurs, the micronation must survive on its own. But after, it is not an issue. Because the mirco-nation ceases to exist as a political entity, and returns to being more of a corporate one. There's a world government that absorbs them politically.

As for the motives, there are some serious differences. The most important are environmental and secular ideological differences.

I know that there have been some micronations that have gone the tax-haven route... I'd rather not. Another thing to consider is the issue of the micro-nationalist movement in general. Originally, it was not going to be a big part of the story. But that was because I was unaware of it. After all the research I've done, I'm thinking that the part of micro-nations will expand. This would open up the possibility of micro-nationalist alliances. Countries like Taiwan and South Ossetia--or actual micro-nations, like Talossa or Malossia--might be convinced that diplomatic contact could be mutually beneficial. For the latter, it would likely be something of a fun experiment. But more serious countries might find the military aspects of such an alliance interesting. The micro-nation is not a supporter of the People's Republic, for instance. The issue of digging for support could be a great source of political and ideological conflict among the members of the micro-nation. Maybe some support a Palestinian state, and some support Israel.

I had considered giving such attention to the political aspects. All great ideas sparked by your comments. Thanks again.

Lhun · Feb 21, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Haha... Good question. Yes, that is certainly a real issue. I've got so much impending research on the table. I would think that the general detection technology would be easily available to this micronation, but I'd have to do more research in terms of submarine warfare to know if there are easily available countermeasures. Or what kind of construction would make the island most resistant to submarine attacks. It's unlikely the micronation would have access to enough subs (if any) to defend against them in that way. And mines/depth charges, for instance, would be almost as dangerous to the island as to a sub if they're close enough. This problem also figures into the question of whether or not the nation poses enough of a threat to warrant such measures by other countries.

I'll leave the politics to other guys and concentrate on the technical stuff.

Subs are not really a threat to any stationary target. Subs can't hide from active sonar, and when you're an island you're not giving away your position by using active sonar. So, a simple network of active sonar stations around the island, and a few planes that can drop torpedoes when necessary will keep the subs at bay. The hide and go seek games are things that take place between subs, not between subs and other targets.

Effective Lasers can be an extremely game changing, though mostly defensive technology. This depends on the power output, refire rate, and accuracy of the laser.
Since you talk about a realy technical edge i'll just asumme it is a really good laser here.
Nukes don't work on the micronation, since the laser can easily knock any aproaching ICBM out of the sky. Or even blow up the incoming warhead.
Cruise missiles can be taken out just as easily. The real edge of a laser here is that in distances as seen on earth it is a true instant hit weapon. Shoot, check if target is dead, shoot again. With a delay in between thats only as long as the laser needs to recharge, not the time a missile needs to get to the ICBM to intercept it.
And with some clever engineering you can actually have the targeting optics of the laser be a part of the focussing optics, meaning your targeting system is never misaligned.
So in conclusion, a functioning high powered laser means pretty much total air superiority anwhere within it's range. As an offensive weapon it is not that scary, unless we talk about some absurdly high power outputs.
Though depending on the size, planes or even tanks armed with a laser are a very scary prospect, though both still need numbers to be effective offensively which a micronation of course won't have.

So, with a good enough laser system your micronation could be untouchable.
To get the best effect you should probably consider giving them a similarly great edge in electronics technology as in laser, so not only the power of their laser system is significantly advanced, but also the targeting technology. That's actually mostly a software problem. Camera, IR sensors and servoes are pretty easy to built, it's hard to program a computer so that it can recognize the target cruise missiles/ICBM/planes and shoot without requiring a human operator. And the less work the human has to do, the faster the whole system will be.

Now a railgun as mentioned is mostly an offensive weapon. Not a real game changing one, but very interesting. If we go really all the way out, we could imagine a big, stationary linear accelerator (better a coil/gauss gun than a railgun though) that can throw objects into orbit or near orbit. Giving you a kinetic weapon with global range and serious impact. A single slug wouldn't have the effect of a nuke, but doesn't cost as much either. Just shoot more. And is much harder to intercept than a nuke.
On the lower end, you simply have an electric gun that shoots projectiles much like any other. Scale at will between the two.
On the moderate scale could be a railgun with a couple of hundred of kilometres range, allowing your micronation to threaten any big target in range (cities aren't hard to hit) and possibly to take out naval target if you can get the necessary accuracy. Getting the targeting data shouldn't be a problem for a high-tech nation, even if GPS gets switched off, just use your version of awacs. Which could also provide air superiority if a laser fits onboard. he bigger problem is to have the slug hit where it's supposed to, since travelling that distance gives room for a lot of chaotic effects or even plain wind to get it off course. And making railgun slugs with a steering system is a really tricky project since that has to survive the linear or coil accelerator. Not really friendly to electronics.

The biggest problem i see with the concept is reengineering. Even if the micronation gets established and has enough of a technological edge to keep any agressor at bay, (like the US probably

) how long ist it going to stay that way? It's not alien technology, a group of competent scientists who get their hands on one of the lasers should be able to figure out how it works in a comparatively short time. Of course in a micronation keeping that info secret is a lot easier. Though i don't know where you are going with it i'd say it makes an awesome setting for a spy thriller, or even a series of them.
Given a laser with enough power, a military conflict is right out of the picture.

Liosse de Velishaf · Feb 21, 2009

This is much more like what I was hoping for in terms of possibilities, Lhun.

I did some sub research, and it looked unlikely that sub would be a threat, but I'm not an expert...

On targeting, I was thinking something like the proposed system for the boeing YAL-1's Airborne laser, which seems to be what you are talking about in terms of the targeting system being basically a part of the main set-up.

I haven't looked too deeply into coil-guns, yet. Another good idea, is there any particular difference in strength or accuracy?

On reengineering, the plan is to avoid losing track of plans or examples. And yes, the US would likely be the main issue, since that's where the defense contractor was originall based.

On the question of where I am going, there are several areas. For this part specifically, which was originally concieved as more of a background issue, I've decided I will probably focus heavily on the political and diplomatic issues surrounding micro-nations. I love a good spy-thriller, but sci-fi and fantasy are my genres of choice when writing. This one may be more of a science fantasy overall, but I'd like to have the possibility open of going in multiple directions.

Thanks for the detailed post, Lhun.

Lhun · Feb 22, 2009

Liosse de Velishaf said:
This is much more like what I was hoping for in terms of possibilities, Lhun.

Glad to be of help.

I did some sub research, and it looked unlikely that sub would be a threat, but I'm not an expert...

Subs are mainly a tactical weapon, used for sinking ships, unless you use them as nuclear/cruise missile platforms which makes no difference when you can shoot down the missiles.

On targeting, I was thinking something like the proposed system for the boeing YAL-1's Airborne laser, which seems to be what you are talking about in terms of the targeting system being basically a part of the main set-up.

I know about the boeing laser though i didn't read anything about their targeting system. The basic idea is that a lense works backwards as well as forward, so you can theoretically build a laser the way that you use the lens as your targeting telescope, and when you have the target in your sights you just switch on the light pump. It's tricky engineering-wise, but not impossible to do, and it means that you will always hit exactly what you were aiming at. Doesn't mean you always hit what you want to of course, but the problem of a normal cannon, that the slug doesn't always hit where the crosshair points (misaligned, wind, chaotic effects) is eliminated.

I haven't looked too deeply into coil-guns, yet. Another good idea, is there any particular difference in strength or accuracy?

There are few practical differences between a railgun and a coilgun. The effect of both will be limited by the amount of electric power you can supply. A coilgun is a lot more tricky to build than a railgun, since it needs a lot of electromagnets built with high precision, but the biggest advantage is that it doesn't melt as part of the operating principle. The biggest problem of a railgun is that the rails carrying the current will melt down with use. A coilgun avoids that problem.
Accuracy wise, the biggest problem is that you have trouble calculating the effects of the athmosphere on your round over the big distances a railgun or coilgun can shoot. There shouldn't be any real difference to classical long-range artillery except for the problem of putting a guiding package in an electromagnetically accelrated round. I have no idea if there's a solution to that problem, i'm not too familiar with electroengineering beyond the most basic of concepts. I think if you know anyone knowledgable about that field of physics they'll be able to answer that question. I'm sure they'll know how a railgun works, and they should know if there's a way to protect electronics inside a projectile from shorting out. If that works at all you could put a guided projectile inside a SABOT shot by a railgun and get the same kind of precision you have with laser-guided bombs.

Thanks for the detailed post, Lhun.

You're welcome.

addendum:
As another thing i often see overlooked is the effect of a laser when it hits. A high powered laser that vaporizer, or more properly ionizes, material when hit will not simply burn holes in stuff. Vaporizing stuff increases its volume by a couple of orders of magnitude. Meaning whenever you hit something with a sufficiently high powered laser you get an explosion. Now, with a laser that's half a millimetre wide that can cut a tank in half the explosive effect will be hardly noticeable. But when the beam is a metre wide and can and instantly turn a couple of cubic metres of most materials into plasma, the explosion will be significant.

heretic_scribe · Feb 23, 2009

After scanning through this thread, I'm not sure if I'm off topic or getting back on topic, but here goes nothin':

The Blade Trinity mount will work whether the sword is upside down or right-side up, provided the blade is shorter than the arm that's drawing/sheathing it. If you want the blade to be longer, you'll have to devise a magic or technology that allows it to shift size,or you'll have to carry it another way.

Or maybe not.

There's one option I didn't see mentioned. (I apologize if I missed it.) In the Conan movies, Conan wears his sword cross-slung on his back, but when the action heats up he takes it off and uses the same straps as a sword belt to hang it off his waist. I know in real life it didn't work as well as they hoped. There's a few scenes where Arnold had to hold the sheath to his side because he couldn't get the rig fastened correctly, but that's not the point. The point is that you don't necessarily need to make the blade alter it's shape. You could make the sheath change. It could be something as simple as Conan's multi-position rig of leather and buckles, or it could be a magic/technology that shifts its shape to release the blade.

The Weaponized Laser

Liosse de Velishaf

Dommo

On Mac's double secret probation.

Liosse de Velishaf

Dommo

On Mac's double secret probation.

Liosse de Velishaf

Histry Nerd

Moving Forward!

Liosse de Velishaf

Dommo

On Mac's double secret probation.

Liosse de Velishaf

GeorgeK

ever seeking

Liosse de Velishaf

GeorgeK

ever seeking

Liosse de Velishaf

Ruv Draba

GeorgeK

ever seeking

Liosse de Velishaf

Liosse de Velishaf

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

Liosse de Velishaf

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

heretic_scribe

CIA Roadsign Assassin