Soviet Particle Beam Weapons - Fact or Fiction - Page 2

publiusr · #31 (**permalink**) 15-March-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60

This weapon is stronger than nuclear weapons because its consequences are different, and there is no antidote.

I was just wondering what the antidote to being on the receiving end of a nuclear weapon was...

Vlad was either BS'ing, or heard about some more conventional weapon (fuel/air) and was confused. The Russians have a lot of good rocket engineers--and they also have a lot of fringe types..charged water and all.

I would not put it past them having an ability to snipe at out spysats with directed energy weapons though. Pump enough electrical power and you can do most anything.

I myself remember hearing scuttlebutt about how some large parabolic dishes of a installation on an island were pointed at Soviet "trawlers" and turned on--wide open. Something about "arcing" and "cancer" came to mind...

mugaliens · #32 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham2001

NOTE: If this proves to be 'verboten' my full apologies.

I was going through a library dump sale and picked up a coffee-table book on 'space warfare' ('The Shape of Wars to Come:The Hidden Facts Behind the Arms Race in Space', David Baker, Patrick Stephens Ltd, 1981), basically its a quickie (as for how quick there are only two photos of Space Shuttles that don't show them being built, one is of the first launch of Columbia, the other is a launch practice using Enterprise.).

The book is typical late-70's early-80's alarmism about Soviet capabilities in the realm of space warfare. Chapter 7 (The Ultimate Threat, pgs 147-166) contains a somewhat lurid tale of the supposed Soviet supremacy in the field of Particle Beam Weapons, with secret labs at places like Semipalatinsk & Sarova, mysterious 'nuclear debris' detected in 1978 over Alaska and concludes with the vision of space based Particle beam weapons scouring the Earths surface of life while leaving buildings intact.

Curiously the Russians are credited with having a ground based system 'ready to go' while the US are the ones supposedly working on a space based system under the codename of 'White Horse'.

The book itself has no references and so I have no way of knowing where to start to run down the truth or otherwise.

Has anyone else done some digging into this and would they be willing to share?

I can neither confirm nor deny...

dgavin · #33 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 05:32 PM

If you can get access to a local library of congress in the USA, I'd suggest reading the seiries of puplications starting in 1983, entiliteld Stratigic Defense Inititive (aka Star Wars)

When I was in the army I was allowed to have them in my collection, but I had to turn them in when I left the military.

They had all sort of stuff that was techicaly planned. Some relistic, some not.

Realistic was the IR Laser anti ICBM Defense grid (and yes three of the planned 20 stations were built), the ABM missles we don't have, and then publicly test fired a few years ago (heh), and the MOAB non nuclear bomb.

Unrelistic was some weather control weapons, some of thier plans for FTL craft, and stun guns (although the Taser did come to fruition, it was only one of many), and many of the particle beam weapons (most of those required a nuclear plant or two to generate the power needed for them)

Gillianren · #34 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

If you can get access to a local library of congress in the USA, I'd suggest reading the seiries of puplications starting in 1983, entiliteld Stratigic Defense Inititive (aka Star Wars)

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a "local" Library of Congress. I'm pretty sure there's only the one. However, there are all kinds of other libraries with government documents.

dgavin · #35 (**permalink**) 26-March-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a "local" Library of Congress. I'm pretty sure there's only the one. However, there are all kinds of other libraries with government documents.

Sorry i should of phrased that check at your local state governments library (usualy they have copies of stuff from Library of Congress like this)

Gillianren · #36 (**permalink**) 26-March-2007, 09:04 PM

Heck, the college I attended has a large section of its library devoted to government documents.

publiusr · #37 (**permalink**) 27-April-2007, 09:32 PM

Over at Sterne library at UAB, is a donated line of shelves with the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.

All under a deep layer of dust...

Maha Vailo · #38 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 06:53 PM

Just out of curisity, is a particle beam wepon even plausible or practical, if so, what would the beam look like to a viewer? What effects would it have?

- Maha Vailo

Grashtel · #39 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maha Vailo

Just out of curisity, is a particle beam wepon even plausible or practical, if so, what would the beam look like to a viewer? What effects would it have?

Plausible yes, practical not without a number of huge breakthroughs in several fields. As to what it would look like I believe that the beam would look like a straight bolt of lightning and have similar effects on the target, though probably with reduced electrical effects, it would also produce dangerous levels of gamma radiation.

Maha Vailo · #40 (**permalink**) 30-April-2007, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grashtel

Plausible yes, practical not without a number of huge breakthroughs in several fields.

What kinds of breakthroughs would have to happen?

Quote:

As to what it would look like I believe that the beam would look like a straight bolt of lightning and have similar effects on the target, though probably with reduced electrical effects, it would also produce dangerous levels of gamma radiation.

What do you base this hypothesis on, and how much gamma radiation would it pour out?

- Maha Vailo

Mister Earl · #41 (**permalink**) 30-April-2007, 03:09 PM

A particle beam weapon utilizes huge banks of ultracapacitors and a small nuclear reactor to step up a massive charge, then pumps all that juice into a "magnetic breech" all at once. This supposedly fires a round a few molecules across to approximately six tenths the speed of light. (Don't hold me to that! That was the "guesstimation" in the article I read.) When the round impacts the target, it doesn't punch through like a bullet. Rather, it shatters on impact, transferring all that kinetic energy into thermal energy, incinerating the target.

I think I read this in a copy of Popular Science... don't recall month OR year =\

publiusr · #42 (**permalink**) 30-April-2007, 07:13 PM

Interesting. Who needs fighter bombers when you can find targets in the desert and zap them. Great psych!

Mister Earl · #43 (**permalink**) 02-May-2007, 03:15 PM

Yeah. You'd never see a shot, just a flash of heat as the guy standing next to you suddenly turns to ash. Considering the level of heat generated, you'd probably hear a thunderclap as the air around the target superheats.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The energy machine of Joseph Newman	banquo's_bumble_puppy	Off-Topic Babbling	179	12-December-2007 11:01 PM
Space to Space Weapons	Wendell	Off-Topic Babbling	232	30-September-2007 02:57 PM
Beam Weapons	N C More	General Science	22	30-January-2006 03:07 AM
Space Warfare	The Supreme Canuck	Small Media at Large	364	27-February-2005 06:52 AM
Geatron Nuclear Model	StarLab	Against the Mainstream	3	01-December-2004 04:28 PM