<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_12_1350222</id>
	<title>Directed Energy Weapon Downs Ballistic Missile</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265985540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A**masher writes <i>"In a test off the Califoria coast late last night, Boeing's Airborne Laser <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61B18C20100212">successfully destroyed a sub-launched ballistic missile</a>. 'This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform,' reported the Missile Defense Agency. It should be noted that destroying a liquid-fueled ballistic missile is generally considered easier than killing a solid-fueled equivalent due to the relative fragility of the fueling and other systems."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A * * masher writes " In a test off the Califoria coast late last night , Boeing 's Airborne Laser successfully destroyed a sub-launched ballistic missile .
'This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform, ' reported the Missile Defense Agency .
It should be noted that destroying a liquid-fueled ballistic missile is generally considered easier than killing a solid-fueled equivalent due to the relative fragility of the fueling and other systems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A**masher writes "In a test off the Califoria coast late last night, Boeing's Airborne Laser successfully destroyed a sub-launched ballistic missile.
'This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform,' reported the Missile Defense Agency.
It should be noted that destroying a liquid-fueled ballistic missile is generally considered easier than killing a solid-fueled equivalent due to the relative fragility of the fueling and other systems.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113142</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1265991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for repeating the summary for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for repeating the summary for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for repeating the summary for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116130</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1266002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The balance of power would be restored. The technology would be acquired by spies and/or countermeasures to the defenses would be developed. The simplest response, a massive buildup up of nuclear ICBMs/cruise missiles/bombs, would lead to a more dangerous world. Making things more complicated would also increase the risk of a first strike against the US if an enemy felt pressed to exploit a temporary advantage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The balance of power would be restored .
The technology would be acquired by spies and/or countermeasures to the defenses would be developed .
The simplest response , a massive buildup up of nuclear ICBMs/cruise missiles/bombs , would lead to a more dangerous world .
Making things more complicated would also increase the risk of a first strike against the US if an enemy felt pressed to exploit a temporary advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The balance of power would be restored.
The technology would be acquired by spies and/or countermeasures to the defenses would be developed.
The simplest response, a massive buildup up of nuclear ICBMs/cruise missiles/bombs, would lead to a more dangerous world.
Making things more complicated would also increase the risk of a first strike against the US if an enemy felt pressed to exploit a temporary advantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115658</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1266000720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>State actors are yesterday's enemy, and your argument is an example of the aphorism that the military always plans to fight the last war over again.</p><p>While nuclear armed states are a problem, and missile defence is certainly a better use of tax dollars than most of the deadweight-loss industry, non-state actors are by far the dominant risk with regard to nuclear weapons.</p><p>Unfortunately, there is no remotely plausible solution to nuclear terrorism, other than some decades of constructive engagement with the social and cultural groups that are likely to engage in it, particularly Muslims, these days.</p><p>The best way to destroy an enemy is to turn them into a friend.  With regard to non-state actors, that may very well be the only way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>State actors are yesterday 's enemy , and your argument is an example of the aphorism that the military always plans to fight the last war over again.While nuclear armed states are a problem , and missile defence is certainly a better use of tax dollars than most of the deadweight-loss industry , non-state actors are by far the dominant risk with regard to nuclear weapons.Unfortunately , there is no remotely plausible solution to nuclear terrorism , other than some decades of constructive engagement with the social and cultural groups that are likely to engage in it , particularly Muslims , these days.The best way to destroy an enemy is to turn them into a friend .
With regard to non-state actors , that may very well be the only way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>State actors are yesterday's enemy, and your argument is an example of the aphorism that the military always plans to fight the last war over again.While nuclear armed states are a problem, and missile defence is certainly a better use of tax dollars than most of the deadweight-loss industry, non-state actors are by far the dominant risk with regard to nuclear weapons.Unfortunately, there is no remotely plausible solution to nuclear terrorism, other than some decades of constructive engagement with the social and cultural groups that are likely to engage in it, particularly Muslims, these days.The best way to destroy an enemy is to turn them into a friend.
With regard to non-state actors, that may very well be the only way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112882</id>
	<title>Wrong Platform</title>
	<author>VorpalRodent</author>
	<datestamp>1265989620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article indicates that this is the first demonstration from an airborne platform.  However, I am significantly more interested in the application of directed energy weapons from certain aquatic platforms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article indicates that this is the first demonstration from an airborne platform .
However , I am significantly more interested in the application of directed energy weapons from certain aquatic platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article indicates that this is the first demonstration from an airborne platform.
However, I am significantly more interested in the application of directed energy weapons from certain aquatic platforms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114708</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1265996940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China <i>invented</i> solid fueled rockets.  If they're having problems...  They will work it out within a few years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China invented solid fueled rockets .
If they 're having problems... They will work it out within a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China invented solid fueled rockets.
If they're having problems...  They will work it out within a few years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115936</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>zehaeva</author>
	<datestamp>1266001680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One quibble, Class II &amp; IIIa lasers,which is the highest power laser that can legally be marketed as a "Laser Pointer" in the US and UK are under 5 milliWatts, not 1-1,000 MegaWatts,</htmltext>
<tokenext>One quibble , Class II &amp; IIIa lasers,which is the highest power laser that can legally be marketed as a " Laser Pointer " in the US and UK are under 5 milliWatts , not 1-1,000 MegaWatts,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One quibble, Class II &amp; IIIa lasers,which is the highest power laser that can legally be marketed as a "Laser Pointer" in the US and UK are under 5 milliWatts, not 1-1,000 MegaWatts,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31118182</id>
	<title>Doesn't work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw a documentary on PBS about this.  They only way they can get this to work is if they program the exact time, trajectory, and location of the missile into the laser firing system.  And even then they only had like a miniscule success rate.  And it is so incredibly easy to fool the system with simple countermeasures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw a documentary on PBS about this .
They only way they can get this to work is if they program the exact time , trajectory , and location of the missile into the laser firing system .
And even then they only had like a miniscule success rate .
And it is so incredibly easy to fool the system with simple countermeasures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw a documentary on PBS about this.
They only way they can get this to work is if they program the exact time, trajectory, and location of the missile into the laser firing system.
And even then they only had like a miniscule success rate.
And it is so incredibly easy to fool the system with simple countermeasures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116612</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes, a high current particle accelerator is so much easier to field than a chemical laser, and we won't even mention the multi-gigawatt power supply.  This laser is in the mult-megawatt range not kilowatts.  The Navy has lots of power and the luxury of building a ship around the laser.  You can't be a chemical laser for energy density.  Robert's Rule for weapons systems:  The optimum number of lasers in a weapon system is 0.  Corollary: The optimum number of particle acclerators in a weapons system: -1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes , a high current particle accelerator is so much easier to field than a chemical laser , and we wo n't even mention the multi-gigawatt power supply .
This laser is in the mult-megawatt range not kilowatts .
The Navy has lots of power and the luxury of building a ship around the laser .
You ca n't be a chemical laser for energy density .
Robert 's Rule for weapons systems : The optimum number of lasers in a weapon system is 0 .
Corollary : The optimum number of particle acclerators in a weapons system : -1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes, a high current particle accelerator is so much easier to field than a chemical laser, and we won't even mention the multi-gigawatt power supply.
This laser is in the mult-megawatt range not kilowatts.
The Navy has lots of power and the luxury of building a ship around the laser.
You can't be a chemical laser for energy density.
Robert's Rule for weapons systems:  The optimum number of lasers in a weapon system is 0.
Corollary: The optimum number of particle acclerators in a weapons system: -1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</id>
	<title>One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1265991540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is why people get so concerned about "wasting money" trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete. Money spent on the missile defense systems is not even remotely analogous to the waste like when some senator tries to create 10k new jobs by ramming 500 new planes down the Air Force's throat or something like that. Most of it is trial and error, basic science and engineering, trying to figure out how to defeat a threat that could, in one blow, murder millions of Americans.</p><p>MAD got us to this point, but the knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors. A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier, harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers. For state actors, that's a non-starter unless they get really lucky or have a death wish like the Iranian ruling class seems to have with their badly veiled threats against at least one nuclear power (Israel).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is why people get so concerned about " wasting money " trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete .
Money spent on the missile defense systems is not even remotely analogous to the waste like when some senator tries to create 10k new jobs by ramming 500 new planes down the Air Force 's throat or something like that .
Most of it is trial and error , basic science and engineering , trying to figure out how to defeat a threat that could , in one blow , murder millions of Americans.MAD got us to this point , but the knowledge that the US could , in 20 years , not only knock out all of your incoming warheads , but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors .
A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier , harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers .
For state actors , that 's a non-starter unless they get really lucky or have a death wish like the Iranian ruling class seems to have with their badly veiled threats against at least one nuclear power ( Israel ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is why people get so concerned about "wasting money" trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete.
Money spent on the missile defense systems is not even remotely analogous to the waste like when some senator tries to create 10k new jobs by ramming 500 new planes down the Air Force's throat or something like that.
Most of it is trial and error, basic science and engineering, trying to figure out how to defeat a threat that could, in one blow, murder millions of Americans.MAD got us to this point, but the knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors.
A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier, harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers.
For state actors, that's a non-starter unless they get really lucky or have a death wish like the Iranian ruling class seems to have with their badly veiled threats against at least one nuclear power (Israel).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>MoralHazard</author>
	<datestamp>1265993400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The big thing is that they were able to track and hit the missile with the laser."</p><p>Sorry to spoil the fun, but no, that's NOT a very big thing. You don't even need to know much about physics to understand why. In short, the actual damage capability of the laser is heavily dependent on how long you can keep the beam tracking on a defined (small) area of the target's surface. Hitting the target momentarily doesn't say much about the weapon's effectiveness, which may still be quite limited.</p><p>Usually, a given laser device has a fixed, constant output power level (power = energy/time). Laser pointers are normally  1 MW and  1,000 MW).</p><p>The AL works by heating the missile's skin and structure, which are made of metal and therefore lose tensile strength at higher temperatures, to the point where the missile can't withstand normal flight stresses and breaks apart. (Kind of like the failure of structural steel during bad high-rise fire.) In order to heat the missile sufficiently, the laser needs to deliver a enough energy, and do it faster than the missile can shed the excess heat via radiative and convective cooling.</p><p>The total amount of energy delivered is the beam's output power multiplied by the amount of time the beam is held on target. If the targeting system can only keep the beam aligned with the (rapidly moving) missile momentarily, for 1/100th of a second, then a hypothetical 500 MW laser will only deliver 5 MW to the target. Even if the beam's output power is sustainable for a longer time interval, the tracking system's limits are the real ceiling on effectiveness.</p><p>Now, WP describes the AL's primary laser as having a 3-5 second output interval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_YAL-1#Intercept\_sequence). But neither WP nor TFA tell us how long the laser can actually track the missile-in-flight. Did they keep the laser on target for 3 seconds, or 5 seconds, or 0.001 seconds? Even a 1 GW laser beam would only deliver 1 MW to the target, in 0.001 second. Unless you know that critical little statistic, you don't know jack shit about what the AL's real capability is.</p><p>And then there's the issue of how tightly the beam can track a particular point on the missile's body. If the contact area wobbles up and down the length of the fuselage, the delivered energy gets spread out over a larger area than if the contact point was entirely confined to (say) a 1 cm^2 area. The more diffuse the contact area, the lower the heating of any one part of the missile. In order to reliably induce break-up, you need to raise a certain-size area of fuselage to a certain critical temperature. A targeting system might be able to keep the beam on the target object for 3-5 seconds, but not keep the beam on the same spot over that whole time period, and therefore not destroy a missile.</p><p>For all we know, the technical hurdles involved in tracking a target for 3-5 seconds are 1,000x worse than hitting it momentarily. Or maybe their targeting is just too wobbly to reliably destroy anything. It wouldn't be the first time a defense contractor engages in optimistic PR to defend the continued existence of a big-budget military project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The big thing is that they were able to track and hit the missile with the laser .
" Sorry to spoil the fun , but no , that 's NOT a very big thing .
You do n't even need to know much about physics to understand why .
In short , the actual damage capability of the laser is heavily dependent on how long you can keep the beam tracking on a defined ( small ) area of the target 's surface .
Hitting the target momentarily does n't say much about the weapon 's effectiveness , which may still be quite limited.Usually , a given laser device has a fixed , constant output power level ( power = energy/time ) .
Laser pointers are normally 1 MW and 1,000 MW ) .The AL works by heating the missile 's skin and structure , which are made of metal and therefore lose tensile strength at higher temperatures , to the point where the missile ca n't withstand normal flight stresses and breaks apart .
( Kind of like the failure of structural steel during bad high-rise fire .
) In order to heat the missile sufficiently , the laser needs to deliver a enough energy , and do it faster than the missile can shed the excess heat via radiative and convective cooling.The total amount of energy delivered is the beam 's output power multiplied by the amount of time the beam is held on target .
If the targeting system can only keep the beam aligned with the ( rapidly moving ) missile momentarily , for 1/100th of a second , then a hypothetical 500 MW laser will only deliver 5 MW to the target .
Even if the beam 's output power is sustainable for a longer time interval , the tracking system 's limits are the real ceiling on effectiveness.Now , WP describes the AL 's primary laser as having a 3-5 second output interval ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing \ _YAL-1 # Intercept \ _sequence ) .
But neither WP nor TFA tell us how long the laser can actually track the missile-in-flight .
Did they keep the laser on target for 3 seconds , or 5 seconds , or 0.001 seconds ?
Even a 1 GW laser beam would only deliver 1 MW to the target , in 0.001 second .
Unless you know that critical little statistic , you do n't know jack shit about what the AL 's real capability is.And then there 's the issue of how tightly the beam can track a particular point on the missile 's body .
If the contact area wobbles up and down the length of the fuselage , the delivered energy gets spread out over a larger area than if the contact point was entirely confined to ( say ) a 1 cm ^ 2 area .
The more diffuse the contact area , the lower the heating of any one part of the missile .
In order to reliably induce break-up , you need to raise a certain-size area of fuselage to a certain critical temperature .
A targeting system might be able to keep the beam on the target object for 3-5 seconds , but not keep the beam on the same spot over that whole time period , and therefore not destroy a missile.For all we know , the technical hurdles involved in tracking a target for 3-5 seconds are 1,000x worse than hitting it momentarily .
Or maybe their targeting is just too wobbly to reliably destroy anything .
It would n't be the first time a defense contractor engages in optimistic PR to defend the continued existence of a big-budget military project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The big thing is that they were able to track and hit the missile with the laser.
"Sorry to spoil the fun, but no, that's NOT a very big thing.
You don't even need to know much about physics to understand why.
In short, the actual damage capability of the laser is heavily dependent on how long you can keep the beam tracking on a defined (small) area of the target's surface.
Hitting the target momentarily doesn't say much about the weapon's effectiveness, which may still be quite limited.Usually, a given laser device has a fixed, constant output power level (power = energy/time).
Laser pointers are normally  1 MW and  1,000 MW).The AL works by heating the missile's skin and structure, which are made of metal and therefore lose tensile strength at higher temperatures, to the point where the missile can't withstand normal flight stresses and breaks apart.
(Kind of like the failure of structural steel during bad high-rise fire.
) In order to heat the missile sufficiently, the laser needs to deliver a enough energy, and do it faster than the missile can shed the excess heat via radiative and convective cooling.The total amount of energy delivered is the beam's output power multiplied by the amount of time the beam is held on target.
If the targeting system can only keep the beam aligned with the (rapidly moving) missile momentarily, for 1/100th of a second, then a hypothetical 500 MW laser will only deliver 5 MW to the target.
Even if the beam's output power is sustainable for a longer time interval, the tracking system's limits are the real ceiling on effectiveness.Now, WP describes the AL's primary laser as having a 3-5 second output interval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_YAL-1#Intercept\_sequence).
But neither WP nor TFA tell us how long the laser can actually track the missile-in-flight.
Did they keep the laser on target for 3 seconds, or 5 seconds, or 0.001 seconds?
Even a 1 GW laser beam would only deliver 1 MW to the target, in 0.001 second.
Unless you know that critical little statistic, you don't know jack shit about what the AL's real capability is.And then there's the issue of how tightly the beam can track a particular point on the missile's body.
If the contact area wobbles up and down the length of the fuselage, the delivered energy gets spread out over a larger area than if the contact point was entirely confined to (say) a 1 cm^2 area.
The more diffuse the contact area, the lower the heating of any one part of the missile.
In order to reliably induce break-up, you need to raise a certain-size area of fuselage to a certain critical temperature.
A targeting system might be able to keep the beam on the target object for 3-5 seconds, but not keep the beam on the same spot over that whole time period, and therefore not destroy a missile.For all we know, the technical hurdles involved in tracking a target for 3-5 seconds are 1,000x worse than hitting it momentarily.
Or maybe their targeting is just too wobbly to reliably destroy anything.
It wouldn't be the first time a defense contractor engages in optimistic PR to defend the continued existence of a big-budget military project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117622</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right idea, wrong substance.  Try a thin ceramic coating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right idea , wrong substance .
Try a thin ceramic coating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right idea, wrong substance.
Try a thin ceramic coating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31122412</id>
	<title>This could open up a new kind of defense</title>
	<author>catd77</author>
	<datestamp>1265981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering Boieng's history I don't think this will be used for anything other then defense.  This could be a breakthrough in defense and the way we handle defense. Soon missiles may not be used at all and prevent terrorist attacks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering Boieng 's history I do n't think this will be used for anything other then defense .
This could be a breakthrough in defense and the way we handle defense .
Soon missiles may not be used at all and prevent terrorist attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering Boieng's history I don't think this will be used for anything other then defense.
This could be a breakthrough in defense and the way we handle defense.
Soon missiles may not be used at all and prevent terrorist attacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113128</id>
	<title>Works Great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No ballistic missiles have landed in my backyard since the test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No ballistic missiles have landed in my backyard since the test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No ballistic missiles have landed in my backyard since the test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113476</id>
	<title>WW3 comes - cannabis will still be illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265992380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform, reported the Missile Defense Agency"</p><p>Wow, now why not use these same resources to investigate cannabis for its positive effects? Perhaps in the mindset of defeating cancer and other diseases? Let's declare a war on cancer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform , reported the Missile Defense Agency " Wow , now why not use these same resources to investigate cannabis for its positive effects ?
Perhaps in the mindset of defeating cancer and other diseases ?
Let 's declare a war on cancer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform, reported the Missile Defense Agency"Wow, now why not use these same resources to investigate cannabis for its positive effects?
Perhaps in the mindset of defeating cancer and other diseases?
Let's declare a war on cancer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117248</id>
	<title>Re:25 years to show Star Wars might work</title>
	<author>galvitron</author>
	<datestamp>1266007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to Wikipedia it looks like we have spent a bit over 100 billion on all missile defense since the 80's star wars program.  I imagine that the ABL only was a small fraction of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wikipedia it looks like we have spent a bit over 100 billion on all missile defense since the 80 's star wars program .
I imagine that the ABL only was a small fraction of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Wikipedia it looks like we have spent a bit over 100 billion on all missile defense since the 80's star wars program.
I imagine that the ABL only was a small fraction of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115772</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1266001080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the video recording is "real time", it sure takes a long time to zap stuff: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ\_WxTiP--c" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ\_WxTiP--c</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>So if the laser system + platform is more expensive than a missle + platform, then the best way of countering the laser is to fire more missiles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the video recording is " real time " , it sure takes a long time to zap stuff : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = uZ \ _WxTiP--c [ youtube.com ] So if the laser system + platform is more expensive than a missle + platform , then the best way of countering the laser is to fire more missiles : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the video recording is "real time", it sure takes a long time to zap stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ\_WxTiP--c [youtube.com]So if the laser system + platform is more expensive than a missle + platform, then the best way of countering the laser is to fire more missiles :).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115102</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to boat about FEL lasers then you need to talk about their efficiency.  Typically less than 1\% wall socket efficiency.  So, for a real weapons class laser ~1MW You would need 100MWs prime power.  On a ship with loads of surplus electrical power then that may be acceptable.  On an airborne platform, that is unacceptable.  I've herd the promises of higher efficiency... They have been realized just like fusion power except instead of saying just 20 more years, the contractor says just 20 million more dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to boat about FEL lasers then you need to talk about their efficiency .
Typically less than 1 \ % wall socket efficiency .
So , for a real weapons class laser ~ 1MW You would need 100MWs prime power .
On a ship with loads of surplus electrical power then that may be acceptable .
On an airborne platform , that is unacceptable .
I 've herd the promises of higher efficiency... They have been realized just like fusion power except instead of saying just 20 more years , the contractor says just 20 million more dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to boat about FEL lasers then you need to talk about their efficiency.
Typically less than 1\% wall socket efficiency.
So, for a real weapons class laser ~1MW You would need 100MWs prime power.
On a ship with loads of surplus electrical power then that may be acceptable.
On an airborne platform, that is unacceptable.
I've herd the promises of higher efficiency... They have been realized just like fusion power except instead of saying just 20 more years, the contractor says just 20 million more dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112818</id>
	<title>Congratulations</title>
	<author>OeLeWaPpErKe</author>
	<datestamp>1265989380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all engineers involved.</p><p>And a careful pat on the back for not blowing up the project for all managers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all engineers involved.And a careful pat on the back for not blowing up the project for all managers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all engineers involved.And a careful pat on the back for not blowing up the project for all managers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115552</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>SlippyToad</author>
	<datestamp>1266000300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, bellicose political rhetoric and cock-walking strutting around got us to the point where we thought we needed a fucking space-laser system to fight our enemies.  For a fraction of that cost we could try diplomacy and negotiation.  Also, I'm not sure the pressing need for a fucking shiny toy laser system is quite up there next to things like fixing our failing healthcare system or reigning in our out-of-control banks, and so on and so on and so on.</p><p>Finally, nuclear missiles and laser beams and expensive fighter planes were helpless against 19 assholes with box cutters.  And they are equally useless against an enraged populace bucking under an unwanted "liberation" and an unwelcome occupation.</p><p>These things are toys for people who have their priorities so fucked-up it's impossible to understand how to start unwinding them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , bellicose political rhetoric and cock-walking strutting around got us to the point where we thought we needed a fucking space-laser system to fight our enemies .
For a fraction of that cost we could try diplomacy and negotiation .
Also , I 'm not sure the pressing need for a fucking shiny toy laser system is quite up there next to things like fixing our failing healthcare system or reigning in our out-of-control banks , and so on and so on and so on.Finally , nuclear missiles and laser beams and expensive fighter planes were helpless against 19 assholes with box cutters .
And they are equally useless against an enraged populace bucking under an unwanted " liberation " and an unwelcome occupation.These things are toys for people who have their priorities so fucked-up it 's impossible to understand how to start unwinding them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, bellicose political rhetoric and cock-walking strutting around got us to the point where we thought we needed a fucking space-laser system to fight our enemies.
For a fraction of that cost we could try diplomacy and negotiation.
Also, I'm not sure the pressing need for a fucking shiny toy laser system is quite up there next to things like fixing our failing healthcare system or reigning in our out-of-control banks, and so on and so on and so on.Finally, nuclear missiles and laser beams and expensive fighter planes were helpless against 19 assholes with box cutters.
And they are equally useless against an enraged populace bucking under an unwanted "liberation" and an unwelcome occupation.These things are toys for people who have their priorities so fucked-up it's impossible to understand how to start unwinding them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114648</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1265996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think obsolete is way to strong a term since the real problem at this point is targetting and tracking.  Once you have those problems solved it's really immaterial what flavor laser is being used.</p><p>Once there's a suitable FEL system slot it into place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think obsolete is way to strong a term since the real problem at this point is targetting and tracking .
Once you have those problems solved it 's really immaterial what flavor laser is being used.Once there 's a suitable FEL system slot it into place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think obsolete is way to strong a term since the real problem at this point is targetting and tracking.
Once you have those problems solved it's really immaterial what flavor laser is being used.Once there's a suitable FEL system slot it into place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117314</id>
	<title>Project Wiki Link</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1266007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get up to date news about this weapons project and general information about our missile defense command <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile\_Command" title="wikipedia.org">here.</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get up to date news about this weapons project and general information about our missile defense command here .
[ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get up to date news about this weapons project and general information about our missile defense command here.
[wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116306</id>
	<title>Re:Great.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Destroying the nuke doesn't trigger the nuclear explosion. It's not like the nuke is just a slab of plutonium that goes boom when it hits something (or something hits it) all by itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Destroying the nuke does n't trigger the nuclear explosion .
It 's not like the nuke is just a slab of plutonium that goes boom when it hits something ( or something hits it ) all by itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Destroying the nuke doesn't trigger the nuclear explosion.
It's not like the nuke is just a slab of plutonium that goes boom when it hits something (or something hits it) all by itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113578</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265992860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just FYI, but the Jefferson Lab FEL does not fit on anything even close to a 747!  It will be a long while before that system flies or even floats.  For the JLab design you have to consider that a lot of cryogenic cooling is needed, which adds logistic as well as severe power constraints.  Evaporative cooling on a 747 is not easy.</p><p>But hey, I am only working at Jefferson Lab, so what do I know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just FYI , but the Jefferson Lab FEL does not fit on anything even close to a 747 !
It will be a long while before that system flies or even floats .
For the JLab design you have to consider that a lot of cryogenic cooling is needed , which adds logistic as well as severe power constraints .
Evaporative cooling on a 747 is not easy.But hey , I am only working at Jefferson Lab , so what do I know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just FYI, but the Jefferson Lab FEL does not fit on anything even close to a 747!
It will be a long while before that system flies or even floats.
For the JLab design you have to consider that a lot of cryogenic cooling is needed, which adds logistic as well as severe power constraints.
Evaporative cooling on a 747 is not easy.But hey, I am only working at Jefferson Lab, so what do I know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114578</id>
	<title>Re:Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>u-235-sentinel</author>
	<datestamp>1265996520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber. But don't worry, you'd have to get someone to build you optics for a phase conjugate target tracking system to do something like that. And no one is stupid enough to do that without realizing the implications.</p></div><p>sharks and lazers man.  that's all you need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber .
But do n't worry , you 'd have to get someone to build you optics for a phase conjugate target tracking system to do something like that .
And no one is stupid enough to do that without realizing the implications.sharks and lazers man .
that 's all you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber.
But don't worry, you'd have to get someone to build you optics for a phase conjugate target tracking system to do something like that.
And no one is stupid enough to do that without realizing the implications.sharks and lazers man.
that's all you need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114068</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Platform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe as a step in between they can use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying\_fish" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">these</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe as a step in between they can use these [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe as a step in between they can use these [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113956</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will have to rotate about an axis.  That point will be vulnerable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will have to rotate about an axis .
That point will be vulnerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will have to rotate about an axis.
That point will be vulnerable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113320</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>ZombieWomble</author>
	<datestamp>1265991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chemical lasers are far from obsolete, and the place they're still useful is this exact type of continuous high-power application. Jefferson may have pushed a FEL to 14 kW, but the laser bolted to the plane delivers <i>megawatts</i> of continuous power.<p>
I have no doubt that FELs will eventually surpass chemical lasers for this sort of application, but right now they're nowhere near ready for this sort of application. And if you think back the 15 years or so to when this project was conceived, they were even less ready. I'm sure the upgrade to FELs will come along sooner or later, but choosing them for the first-generation design would probably have delayed this project quite a considerable amount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chemical lasers are far from obsolete , and the place they 're still useful is this exact type of continuous high-power application .
Jefferson may have pushed a FEL to 14 kW , but the laser bolted to the plane delivers megawatts of continuous power .
I have no doubt that FELs will eventually surpass chemical lasers for this sort of application , but right now they 're nowhere near ready for this sort of application .
And if you think back the 15 years or so to when this project was conceived , they were even less ready .
I 'm sure the upgrade to FELs will come along sooner or later , but choosing them for the first-generation design would probably have delayed this project quite a considerable amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chemical lasers are far from obsolete, and the place they're still useful is this exact type of continuous high-power application.
Jefferson may have pushed a FEL to 14 kW, but the laser bolted to the plane delivers megawatts of continuous power.
I have no doubt that FELs will eventually surpass chemical lasers for this sort of application, but right now they're nowhere near ready for this sort of application.
And if you think back the 15 years or so to when this project was conceived, they were even less ready.
I'm sure the upgrade to FELs will come along sooner or later, but choosing them for the first-generation design would probably have delayed this project quite a considerable amount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</id>
	<title>Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265990640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the ABL is that it is a chemical laser based system and as such it is almost already obsolete in the laboratory.  Chemical lasers have huge logistical problems and can only fire so many shots, and require huge space, which is why the ABL has cost a fortune and requires a 747.</p><p>The future really belongs to the Free Electron Laser, which is making leaps and bounds.   If we were to wave the mantra of intraservice rivalries around, then one should say that while the US Navy has had an awful time actually building ships, they've pretty much been whipping on the US Air Force when it comes to both aircraft and lasers and missile defense systems.</p><p>Jefferson labs has pushed a Free Electron laser to 14kw.</p><p><a href="http://www.jlab.org/fel/" title="jlab.org">http://www.jlab.org/fel/</a> [jlab.org]</p><p>And, the US Navy has Raytheon has been awarded a contract for a 100KW Free Electron Laser</p><p><a href="http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&amp;item=1292&amp;pagetemplate=release" title="mediaroom.com">http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&amp;item=1292&amp;pagetemplate=release</a> [mediaroom.com]</p><p>And indeed, some are noting that it will soon be possible to carry these things in the nose of a fighter aircraft, not just a 747.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the ABL is that it is a chemical laser based system and as such it is almost already obsolete in the laboratory .
Chemical lasers have huge logistical problems and can only fire so many shots , and require huge space , which is why the ABL has cost a fortune and requires a 747.The future really belongs to the Free Electron Laser , which is making leaps and bounds .
If we were to wave the mantra of intraservice rivalries around , then one should say that while the US Navy has had an awful time actually building ships , they 've pretty much been whipping on the US Air Force when it comes to both aircraft and lasers and missile defense systems.Jefferson labs has pushed a Free Electron laser to 14kw.http : //www.jlab.org/fel/ [ jlab.org ] And , the US Navy has Raytheon has been awarded a contract for a 100KW Free Electron Laserhttp : //raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php ? s = 43&amp;item = 1292&amp;pagetemplate = release [ mediaroom.com ] And indeed , some are noting that it will soon be possible to carry these things in the nose of a fighter aircraft , not just a 747 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the ABL is that it is a chemical laser based system and as such it is almost already obsolete in the laboratory.
Chemical lasers have huge logistical problems and can only fire so many shots, and require huge space, which is why the ABL has cost a fortune and requires a 747.The future really belongs to the Free Electron Laser, which is making leaps and bounds.
If we were to wave the mantra of intraservice rivalries around, then one should say that while the US Navy has had an awful time actually building ships, they've pretty much been whipping on the US Air Force when it comes to both aircraft and lasers and missile defense systems.Jefferson labs has pushed a Free Electron laser to 14kw.http://www.jlab.org/fel/ [jlab.org]And, the US Navy has Raytheon has been awarded a contract for a 100KW Free Electron Laserhttp://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&amp;item=1292&amp;pagetemplate=release [mediaroom.com]And indeed, some are noting that it will soon be possible to carry these things in the nose of a fighter aircraft, not just a 747.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31124616</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead on working on tech to stop missile attacks, why don't you work on fixing the reasons why the ennemy wants to send a missile towards you in the first place?</p></div><p>Because nations with ambitious rulers don't need a rational reason to want to attack you, if all of recorded history is any guide.  But then, maybe for the first time if we send kisses, love, and peace to Kim Jong Il, he'll be different.  Maybe some Pakistani scientist won't sell nuclear technology to an Islamic extremist crazy.  Maybe if we're nice and throw away all our weapons everybody will love us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead on working on tech to stop missile attacks , why do n't you work on fixing the reasons why the ennemy wants to send a missile towards you in the first place ? Because nations with ambitious rulers do n't need a rational reason to want to attack you , if all of recorded history is any guide .
But then , maybe for the first time if we send kisses , love , and peace to Kim Jong Il , he 'll be different .
Maybe some Pakistani scientist wo n't sell nuclear technology to an Islamic extremist crazy .
Maybe if we 're nice and throw away all our weapons everybody will love us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead on working on tech to stop missile attacks, why don't you work on fixing the reasons why the ennemy wants to send a missile towards you in the first place?Because nations with ambitious rulers don't need a rational reason to want to attack you, if all of recorded history is any guide.
But then, maybe for the first time if we send kisses, love, and peace to Kim Jong Il, he'll be different.
Maybe some Pakistani scientist won't sell nuclear technology to an Islamic extremist crazy.
Maybe if we're nice and throw away all our weapons everybody will love us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113902</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1265994000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?</p></div><p>Did you ever bother to look up an answer? I know people who work on weapon systems. The first thing they do is consider potential countermeasures.</p><p>There's no such thing as a perfectly reflecting mirror. *Some* energy will be absorbed, and with no place to go, will vaporize the mirror coating, probably within a fraction of a second at these power levels.</p><p>But if the enemy wants to coat their missile with a bright, shiny (read: easily tracked) coating, I wouldn't complain. Hell, I'd sell them the paint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>always wondered , would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat ? Did you ever bother to look up an answer ?
I know people who work on weapon systems .
The first thing they do is consider potential countermeasures.There 's no such thing as a perfectly reflecting mirror .
* Some * energy will be absorbed , and with no place to go , will vaporize the mirror coating , probably within a fraction of a second at these power levels.But if the enemy wants to coat their missile with a bright , shiny ( read : easily tracked ) coating , I would n't complain .
Hell , I 'd sell them the paint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?Did you ever bother to look up an answer?
I know people who work on weapon systems.
The first thing they do is consider potential countermeasures.There's no such thing as a perfectly reflecting mirror.
*Some* energy will be absorbed, and with no place to go, will vaporize the mirror coating, probably within a fraction of a second at these power levels.But if the enemy wants to coat their missile with a bright, shiny (read: easily tracked) coating, I wouldn't complain.
Hell, I'd sell them the paint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113660</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265993160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could accomplish more by rotating the missile in flight fast enough for no one area to heat to the point of structural failure.<br> <br>Hell, combine both methods!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could accomplish more by rotating the missile in flight fast enough for no one area to heat to the point of structural failure .
Hell , combine both methods !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could accomplish more by rotating the missile in flight fast enough for no one area to heat to the point of structural failure.
Hell, combine both methods!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114324</id>
	<title>Where's the vid?</title>
	<author>ShinyBrowncoat</author>
	<datestamp>1265995620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Video or it didn't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Video or it did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video or it didn't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114814</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>Translation Error</author>
	<datestamp>1265997300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's always something better coming 'just around the corner'.  If you keep waiting for it to come, you'll never get started.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's always something better coming 'just around the corner' .
If you keep waiting for it to come , you 'll never get started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's always something better coming 'just around the corner'.
If you keep waiting for it to come, you'll never get started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115304</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265999340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MAD got us to this point, but the knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors.</p></div><p>No, it would end the threat of large scale nuclear attacks on the USA and any allies we sold/give the technology to. On the flip side, it would increase the chance that someone in the US government would level Tehran, Moscow, or Damascus knowing that it could completely escape retaliation. Just because it's the United States with the power to nuke anyone else without getting nuked back doesn't mean that that power would be only used for Truth, Justice, and Democracy.</p><p>That sort of reasoning is precisely why there was a treaty between the US and the USSR in 1972 that banned the development of missile defense shields.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MAD got us to this point , but the knowledge that the US could , in 20 years , not only knock out all of your incoming warheads , but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors.No , it would end the threat of large scale nuclear attacks on the USA and any allies we sold/give the technology to .
On the flip side , it would increase the chance that someone in the US government would level Tehran , Moscow , or Damascus knowing that it could completely escape retaliation .
Just because it 's the United States with the power to nuke anyone else without getting nuked back does n't mean that that power would be only used for Truth , Justice , and Democracy.That sort of reasoning is precisely why there was a treaty between the US and the USSR in 1972 that banned the development of missile defense shields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MAD got us to this point, but the knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors.No, it would end the threat of large scale nuclear attacks on the USA and any allies we sold/give the technology to.
On the flip side, it would increase the chance that someone in the US government would level Tehran, Moscow, or Damascus knowing that it could completely escape retaliation.
Just because it's the United States with the power to nuke anyone else without getting nuked back doesn't mean that that power would be only used for Truth, Justice, and Democracy.That sort of reasoning is precisely why there was a treaty between the US and the USSR in 1972 that banned the development of missile defense shields.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115668</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1266000720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My microwave oven is a lot more efficient than my charcoal grill, but the microwave oven doesn't work so well when I throw a tailgate party and have nowhere to plug it in.</p><p>There's nothing better than chemical fuel for storing lots of energy in a small space with no extension cords -- which is the usual design requirement for vehicle-mounted technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My microwave oven is a lot more efficient than my charcoal grill , but the microwave oven does n't work so well when I throw a tailgate party and have nowhere to plug it in.There 's nothing better than chemical fuel for storing lots of energy in a small space with no extension cords -- which is the usual design requirement for vehicle-mounted technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My microwave oven is a lot more efficient than my charcoal grill, but the microwave oven doesn't work so well when I throw a tailgate party and have nowhere to plug it in.There's nothing better than chemical fuel for storing lots of energy in a small space with no extension cords -- which is the usual design requirement for vehicle-mounted technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116998</id>
	<title>Game theory</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1266006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, let's say we have two states (let's call them Blue and Red) each with 2500 nukes.</p><p>Let's say Red develops a defense system that's 90\% effective.</p><p>Let's say war appears imminent.  Now Blue has a choice, it can either make a sneak attack which will still get 10\% or 250 of its warheads through (which is more than enough to destroy a country).  Red will of course retaliate destroying Blue so they both lose OR...</p><p>It can wait for Red to attack first (and wait for Red's warheads to actually hit before retaliating).  Now though, Blue's strategic forces have been pulverized from Red's first strike and very few will make it through Red's defenses.  Red wins.  (If there was no defense system, enough of Blue's forces would have gotten through which would have meant that again, they both would have "lost").</p><p>In both cases Blue loses, but in the first case it can at least also destroy Red.  So, it is "better" for Blue to launch a sneak attack.  Now obviously no one (country) wants to commit suicide but in times of great international strife, when war seems likely anyway, a desperate "leader" may decide it is better to go down fighting.  So the presence of this "defense system" has increased the likelihood of a major nuclear exchange.  At the very least Blue should adopt a policy of "Launch on Warning"; that way if Red launches a surprise strike by the time the warheads arrive, the silos it targeted will be empty.  Unfortunately this policy carries substantial risks; can you say "false alarm"?</p><p>For these reasons (and others) the US and USSR through diplomatic agreements but driven by base self-interest (nobody wants to die), dramatically reduced their number of MIRVed warheads.  (Some missiles like the US's MX and the USSR's "Satan" could carry up to 14).  While very efficient, a MIRV with 14 warheads was a very tempting target in a first strike; one hit and you've kept 14 warheads from hitting your homeland.  Likewise silos were hardened so that military commanders didn't think that they had to "use it or lose it" so much, instead they could afford to ride out an attack (and make sure that the radar blips weren't in fact a bunch of geese).  (The US also had a lot of submarine based warheads, the USSR used mobile launchers).  Finally, with the end of the cold war, missiles have been retargeted to the open ocean.  While mostly symbolic if there was an accidental launching there would be more dead fish (but fewer dead people).</p><p>So missile defenses might not "effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict".  In some circumstances they could increase it.  MAD has worked for 50 years.  Be careful when you try replacing it with something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , let 's say we have two states ( let 's call them Blue and Red ) each with 2500 nukes.Let 's say Red develops a defense system that 's 90 \ % effective.Let 's say war appears imminent .
Now Blue has a choice , it can either make a sneak attack which will still get 10 \ % or 250 of its warheads through ( which is more than enough to destroy a country ) .
Red will of course retaliate destroying Blue so they both lose OR...It can wait for Red to attack first ( and wait for Red 's warheads to actually hit before retaliating ) .
Now though , Blue 's strategic forces have been pulverized from Red 's first strike and very few will make it through Red 's defenses .
Red wins .
( If there was no defense system , enough of Blue 's forces would have gotten through which would have meant that again , they both would have " lost " ) .In both cases Blue loses , but in the first case it can at least also destroy Red .
So , it is " better " for Blue to launch a sneak attack .
Now obviously no one ( country ) wants to commit suicide but in times of great international strife , when war seems likely anyway , a desperate " leader " may decide it is better to go down fighting .
So the presence of this " defense system " has increased the likelihood of a major nuclear exchange .
At the very least Blue should adopt a policy of " Launch on Warning " ; that way if Red launches a surprise strike by the time the warheads arrive , the silos it targeted will be empty .
Unfortunately this policy carries substantial risks ; can you say " false alarm " ? For these reasons ( and others ) the US and USSR through diplomatic agreements but driven by base self-interest ( nobody wants to die ) , dramatically reduced their number of MIRVed warheads .
( Some missiles like the US 's MX and the USSR 's " Satan " could carry up to 14 ) .
While very efficient , a MIRV with 14 warheads was a very tempting target in a first strike ; one hit and you 've kept 14 warheads from hitting your homeland .
Likewise silos were hardened so that military commanders did n't think that they had to " use it or lose it " so much , instead they could afford to ride out an attack ( and make sure that the radar blips were n't in fact a bunch of geese ) .
( The US also had a lot of submarine based warheads , the USSR used mobile launchers ) .
Finally , with the end of the cold war , missiles have been retargeted to the open ocean .
While mostly symbolic if there was an accidental launching there would be more dead fish ( but fewer dead people ) .So missile defenses might not " effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict " .
In some circumstances they could increase it .
MAD has worked for 50 years .
Be careful when you try replacing it with something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, let's say we have two states (let's call them Blue and Red) each with 2500 nukes.Let's say Red develops a defense system that's 90\% effective.Let's say war appears imminent.
Now Blue has a choice, it can either make a sneak attack which will still get 10\% or 250 of its warheads through (which is more than enough to destroy a country).
Red will of course retaliate destroying Blue so they both lose OR...It can wait for Red to attack first (and wait for Red's warheads to actually hit before retaliating).
Now though, Blue's strategic forces have been pulverized from Red's first strike and very few will make it through Red's defenses.
Red wins.
(If there was no defense system, enough of Blue's forces would have gotten through which would have meant that again, they both would have "lost").In both cases Blue loses, but in the first case it can at least also destroy Red.
So, it is "better" for Blue to launch a sneak attack.
Now obviously no one (country) wants to commit suicide but in times of great international strife, when war seems likely anyway, a desperate "leader" may decide it is better to go down fighting.
So the presence of this "defense system" has increased the likelihood of a major nuclear exchange.
At the very least Blue should adopt a policy of "Launch on Warning"; that way if Red launches a surprise strike by the time the warheads arrive, the silos it targeted will be empty.
Unfortunately this policy carries substantial risks; can you say "false alarm"?For these reasons (and others) the US and USSR through diplomatic agreements but driven by base self-interest (nobody wants to die), dramatically reduced their number of MIRVed warheads.
(Some missiles like the US's MX and the USSR's "Satan" could carry up to 14).
While very efficient, a MIRV with 14 warheads was a very tempting target in a first strike; one hit and you've kept 14 warheads from hitting your homeland.
Likewise silos were hardened so that military commanders didn't think that they had to "use it or lose it" so much, instead they could afford to ride out an attack (and make sure that the radar blips weren't in fact a bunch of geese).
(The US also had a lot of submarine based warheads, the USSR used mobile launchers).
Finally, with the end of the cold war, missiles have been retargeted to the open ocean.
While mostly symbolic if there was an accidental launching there would be more dead fish (but fewer dead people).So missile defenses might not "effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict".
In some circumstances they could increase it.
MAD has worked for 50 years.
Be careful when you try replacing it with something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116780</id>
	<title>Why is this news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266005520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Directed Energy Weapon Downed the oklahoma city building AND the world trade centers.</p><p>Anyone who thinks differently sucks the government's cock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Directed Energy Weapon Downed the oklahoma city building AND the world trade centers.Anyone who thinks differently sucks the government 's cock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Directed Energy Weapon Downed the oklahoma city building AND the world trade centers.Anyone who thinks differently sucks the government's cock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113890</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so much about being "mirror-like" (polished), but rather about being "white" (reflective). The thing is, nothing reflects 100\% of the incoming light - even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectivity" title="wikipedia.org">the reflectivity of <em>pure</em> alumin[i]um's </a> [wikipedia.org]is slightly above 90\% for visible light, dips to 85\% around 850 nm (near IR), and bounces back to perhaps 97\% in the micrometer range (which is what some big lasers give out if I'm not mistaken).</p><p>Still, 97\% is a lot of wasted energy, and thus the need for high energies and huge lasers on ginormous shar^H^H^H^H planes. But perhaps light is perhaps the only thing that can reliably hit a speeding missile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much about being " mirror-like " ( polished ) , but rather about being " white " ( reflective ) .
The thing is , nothing reflects 100 \ % of the incoming light - even the reflectivity of pure alumin [ i ] um 's [ wikipedia.org ] is slightly above 90 \ % for visible light , dips to 85 \ % around 850 nm ( near IR ) , and bounces back to perhaps 97 \ % in the micrometer range ( which is what some big lasers give out if I 'm not mistaken ) .Still , 97 \ % is a lot of wasted energy , and thus the need for high energies and huge lasers on ginormous shar ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H planes .
But perhaps light is perhaps the only thing that can reliably hit a speeding missile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much about being "mirror-like" (polished), but rather about being "white" (reflective).
The thing is, nothing reflects 100\% of the incoming light - even the reflectivity of pure alumin[i]um's  [wikipedia.org]is slightly above 90\% for visible light, dips to 85\% around 850 nm (near IR), and bounces back to perhaps 97\% in the micrometer range (which is what some big lasers give out if I'm not mistaken).Still, 97\% is a lot of wasted energy, and thus the need for high energies and huge lasers on ginormous shar^H^H^H^H planes.
But perhaps light is perhaps the only thing that can reliably hit a speeding missile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115230</id>
	<title>Re:Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1265998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, your first day as a member of the human race, is it ? Here, have this introductory brochure. It'll explain key concepts like greed, stupidity, bureaucracy and malice to you, all of which are quite vital to understanding your new environment.</p><p>There's still a fringe movement that attaches value to things like compassion and peace, too, but they're overwhelmed, if not outnumbered, by the others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , your first day as a member of the human race , is it ?
Here , have this introductory brochure .
It 'll explain key concepts like greed , stupidity , bureaucracy and malice to you , all of which are quite vital to understanding your new environment.There 's still a fringe movement that attaches value to things like compassion and peace , too , but they 're overwhelmed , if not outnumbered , by the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, your first day as a member of the human race, is it ?
Here, have this introductory brochure.
It'll explain key concepts like greed, stupidity, bureaucracy and malice to you, all of which are quite vital to understanding your new environment.There's still a fringe movement that attaches value to things like compassion and peace, too, but they're overwhelmed, if not outnumbered, by the others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117606</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1265965500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"is why people get so concerned about "wasting money" trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete."</p><p>You do realize that this is an endless and pointless race?  What if one country creates a planetary bomb they drill into the earths core?  At some point our capacity for destruction will be so powerful that all it will take is one device to take out the entire planet, at that point the arms race for "protecting millions of lives" is ridiculous.</p><p>If you want to protect millions of lives design better human without the backward feral psychology of current people.</p><p>Wars are about humanity and it's psyche and not much else, if I were in the military I would be spending all my money on biological sciences and nanotech it has far more long lasting and far-reaching impact then stupid missile defense programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" is why people get so concerned about " wasting money " trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete .
" You do realize that this is an endless and pointless race ?
What if one country creates a planetary bomb they drill into the earths core ?
At some point our capacity for destruction will be so powerful that all it will take is one device to take out the entire planet , at that point the arms race for " protecting millions of lives " is ridiculous.If you want to protect millions of lives design better human without the backward feral psychology of current people.Wars are about humanity and it 's psyche and not much else , if I were in the military I would be spending all my money on biological sciences and nanotech it has far more long lasting and far-reaching impact then stupid missile defense programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"is why people get so concerned about "wasting money" trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete.
"You do realize that this is an endless and pointless race?
What if one country creates a planetary bomb they drill into the earths core?
At some point our capacity for destruction will be so powerful that all it will take is one device to take out the entire planet, at that point the arms race for "protecting millions of lives" is ridiculous.If you want to protect millions of lives design better human without the backward feral psychology of current people.Wars are about humanity and it's psyche and not much else, if I were in the military I would be spending all my money on biological sciences and nanotech it has far more long lasting and far-reaching impact then stupid missile defense programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114552</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1265996400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't give a perfect reply because I don't know enough about it, but what I do know, from talking to my friends who are working on related systems -- anti-missile missiles that intercept and ram the other missiles, and are currently being tested -- is that this is a cat-and-mouse game.  There are lots of things that can be put into an ICBM to increase its survivability against defensive systems.  Reducing the albedo of the missile is an obvious one, but difficult because it's hard to make a good mirror that can stand being left in a silo for years and then shot through the atmosphere while retaining its reflectivity.  Another tactic, which one of my friends claims there's some evidence that designers of ICBM's intended to evade US antimissile systems are researching, is dumping gas out the front of the missile.  This actually serves two purposes: a lot of targeting systems rely on the ICBM's heat, from air resistance, so shooting some opaque, cryogenic gas out the front of the missile both reduces its temperature signature and means an anti-missile laser would have some portion of its energy expended in vaporizing cold gas.  If a laser system were just barely able to cut a hole in the missile, a highly reflective surface might be all that's needed.  A combination of a high-reflectivity surface, a missile that rotates rapidly, and a gas screen, significantly increases the amount of laser power that's needed, or means the laser tracking system needs to hold on that target for longer, meaning another target might get through the anti-missile system.  That, also, is another way of dealing with it: launch more.  Lots of cheap missiles is a completely viable strategy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't give a perfect reply because I do n't know enough about it , but what I do know , from talking to my friends who are working on related systems -- anti-missile missiles that intercept and ram the other missiles , and are currently being tested -- is that this is a cat-and-mouse game .
There are lots of things that can be put into an ICBM to increase its survivability against defensive systems .
Reducing the albedo of the missile is an obvious one , but difficult because it 's hard to make a good mirror that can stand being left in a silo for years and then shot through the atmosphere while retaining its reflectivity .
Another tactic , which one of my friends claims there 's some evidence that designers of ICBM 's intended to evade US antimissile systems are researching , is dumping gas out the front of the missile .
This actually serves two purposes : a lot of targeting systems rely on the ICBM 's heat , from air resistance , so shooting some opaque , cryogenic gas out the front of the missile both reduces its temperature signature and means an anti-missile laser would have some portion of its energy expended in vaporizing cold gas .
If a laser system were just barely able to cut a hole in the missile , a highly reflective surface might be all that 's needed .
A combination of a high-reflectivity surface , a missile that rotates rapidly , and a gas screen , significantly increases the amount of laser power that 's needed , or means the laser tracking system needs to hold on that target for longer , meaning another target might get through the anti-missile system .
That , also , is another way of dealing with it : launch more .
Lots of cheap missiles is a completely viable strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't give a perfect reply because I don't know enough about it, but what I do know, from talking to my friends who are working on related systems -- anti-missile missiles that intercept and ram the other missiles, and are currently being tested -- is that this is a cat-and-mouse game.
There are lots of things that can be put into an ICBM to increase its survivability against defensive systems.
Reducing the albedo of the missile is an obvious one, but difficult because it's hard to make a good mirror that can stand being left in a silo for years and then shot through the atmosphere while retaining its reflectivity.
Another tactic, which one of my friends claims there's some evidence that designers of ICBM's intended to evade US antimissile systems are researching, is dumping gas out the front of the missile.
This actually serves two purposes: a lot of targeting systems rely on the ICBM's heat, from air resistance, so shooting some opaque, cryogenic gas out the front of the missile both reduces its temperature signature and means an anti-missile laser would have some portion of its energy expended in vaporizing cold gas.
If a laser system were just barely able to cut a hole in the missile, a highly reflective surface might be all that's needed.
A combination of a high-reflectivity surface, a missile that rotates rapidly, and a gas screen, significantly increases the amount of laser power that's needed, or means the laser tracking system needs to hold on that target for longer, meaning another target might get through the anti-missile system.
That, also, is another way of dealing with it: launch more.
Lots of cheap missiles is a completely viable strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116420</id>
	<title>Mirror coating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266003540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well you could coat the missiles with the same coating the use on the lasers' mirrors.  Or if the missile is black enough you might have trouble tracking it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you could coat the missiles with the same coating the use on the lasers ' mirrors .
Or if the missile is black enough you might have trouble tracking it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you could coat the missiles with the same coating the use on the lasers' mirrors.
Or if the missile is black enough you might have trouble tracking it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1265990100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think it would be quite effective.  Cruise missiles and aircraft generally travel much slower than a ballistic missile. On the other hand, their flight path is also less predictable and they are typically better armored (aircraft at least).  The big thing is that they were able to track and hit the missile with the laser.  It makes me wonder what stage of flight that they hit it in.  Was it right after launch while it was still accelerating (and may have been subsonic), or was it in full cruise (where it may have been going hypersonic)?  If the former, what are the chances that this thing would be able to detect and engage a missile that close to launch.  If the latter, well, that's freaking cool...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think it would be quite effective .
Cruise missiles and aircraft generally travel much slower than a ballistic missile .
On the other hand , their flight path is also less predictable and they are typically better armored ( aircraft at least ) .
The big thing is that they were able to track and hit the missile with the laser .
It makes me wonder what stage of flight that they hit it in .
Was it right after launch while it was still accelerating ( and may have been subsonic ) , or was it in full cruise ( where it may have been going hypersonic ) ?
If the former , what are the chances that this thing would be able to detect and engage a missile that close to launch .
If the latter , well , that 's freaking cool.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think it would be quite effective.
Cruise missiles and aircraft generally travel much slower than a ballistic missile.
On the other hand, their flight path is also less predictable and they are typically better armored (aircraft at least).
The big thing is that they were able to track and hit the missile with the laser.
It makes me wonder what stage of flight that they hit it in.
Was it right after launch while it was still accelerating (and may have been subsonic), or was it in full cruise (where it may have been going hypersonic)?
If the former, what are the chances that this thing would be able to detect and engage a missile that close to launch.
If the latter, well, that's freaking cool...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113880</id>
	<title>Re:25 years to show Star Wars might work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Source please?  I don't think we've ever really funded this as much of a national priority until the last few years.  Also, we needed technology to evolve to make lasers that were powerful enough, imaging systems good enough, and tracking computers fast enough to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Source please ?
I do n't think we 've ever really funded this as much of a national priority until the last few years .
Also , we needed technology to evolve to make lasers that were powerful enough , imaging systems good enough , and tracking computers fast enough to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Source please?
I don't think we've ever really funded this as much of a national priority until the last few years.
Also, we needed technology to evolve to make lasers that were powerful enough, imaging systems good enough, and tracking computers fast enough to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113834</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1265993760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>North Korea and Iran use liquid fuel IRBMs. China's long range ICBMs (the ones that can reach the continental US) are liquid fuel based. China has been working on a long range solid fueled ICBM family for some time now but have been having some issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>North Korea and Iran use liquid fuel IRBMs .
China 's long range ICBMs ( the ones that can reach the continental US ) are liquid fuel based .
China has been working on a long range solid fueled ICBM family for some time now but have been having some issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>North Korea and Iran use liquid fuel IRBMs.
China's long range ICBMs (the ones that can reach the continental US) are liquid fuel based.
China has been working on a long range solid fueled ICBM family for some time now but have been having some issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514</id>
	<title>Great.</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1265996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So when Russia starts firing nukes at the US, we get nukes being destroyed. Directly over us. Brilliant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when Russia starts firing nukes at the US , we get nukes being destroyed .
Directly over us .
Brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when Russia starts firing nukes at the US, we get nukes being destroyed.
Directly over us.
Brilliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824</id>
	<title>Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1265989380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The missile they shot down was liquid fueled and not solid. Solid fuel targets may be a little harder to take out.<br>On the plus side Russia and a lot of other nations still use a large number of liquid fueled missiles.  I also wonder how well it will work with say cruise missiles, UAVs, and or aircraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The missile they shot down was liquid fueled and not solid .
Solid fuel targets may be a little harder to take out.On the plus side Russia and a lot of other nations still use a large number of liquid fueled missiles .
I also wonder how well it will work with say cruise missiles , UAVs , and or aircraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The missile they shot down was liquid fueled and not solid.
Solid fuel targets may be a little harder to take out.On the plus side Russia and a lot of other nations still use a large number of liquid fueled missiles.
I also wonder how well it will work with say cruise missiles, UAVs, and or aircraft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116036</id>
	<title>Re:Great.</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1266002100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope. This system works during a missile's boost phase. That means the 747 has to get within a few hundred miles of the launch site. To put this another way, we'd have to fly this airplane inside the airspace of the aggressor and linger there long enough for them to catch the launch. Think about what it would take to defend such an airplane against anyone with halfway decent air defenses.
</p><p>Forget defending against Russian, Chinese, North Korean or even Iranian ICBMs. This will probably be sold to Israel for use against Hezbollah rockets, where the airspace is secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
This system works during a missile 's boost phase .
That means the 747 has to get within a few hundred miles of the launch site .
To put this another way , we 'd have to fly this airplane inside the airspace of the aggressor and linger there long enough for them to catch the launch .
Think about what it would take to defend such an airplane against anyone with halfway decent air defenses .
Forget defending against Russian , Chinese , North Korean or even Iranian ICBMs .
This will probably be sold to Israel for use against Hezbollah rockets , where the airspace is secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
This system works during a missile's boost phase.
That means the 747 has to get within a few hundred miles of the launch site.
To put this another way, we'd have to fly this airplane inside the airspace of the aggressor and linger there long enough for them to catch the launch.
Think about what it would take to defend such an airplane against anyone with halfway decent air defenses.
Forget defending against Russian, Chinese, North Korean or even Iranian ICBMs.
This will probably be sold to Israel for use against Hezbollah rockets, where the airspace is secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114158</id>
	<title>Internal consumption not external</title>
	<author>jvillain</author>
	<datestamp>1265994960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the more salient point is that it is being done while defence spending cuts are being considered. Propaganda is a common method to make sure some one else's project gets cancelled and not yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the more salient point is that it is being done while defence spending cuts are being considered .
Propaganda is a common method to make sure some one else 's project gets cancelled and not yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the more salient point is that it is being done while defence spending cuts are being considered.
Propaganda is a common method to make sure some one else's project gets cancelled and not yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117166</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>eh2o</author>
	<datestamp>1266007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Missile defense systems have a history of fraudulent claims and glaringly obvious problems such as the inability to take out warheads once they separate from the missile booster (which typically happens well outside the range of such systems) and the fact that for very low investment by the enemy they are easily defeated by decoys.</p><p>At least new planes, while useless in the sense that there is no real need for them, do actually meet their functional specifications.</p><p>Diplomacy, education and improvement of living standards worldwide are the only proven means for the reduction of violence, and are future-proof with respect to any new technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Missile defense systems have a history of fraudulent claims and glaringly obvious problems such as the inability to take out warheads once they separate from the missile booster ( which typically happens well outside the range of such systems ) and the fact that for very low investment by the enemy they are easily defeated by decoys.At least new planes , while useless in the sense that there is no real need for them , do actually meet their functional specifications.Diplomacy , education and improvement of living standards worldwide are the only proven means for the reduction of violence , and are future-proof with respect to any new technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Missile defense systems have a history of fraudulent claims and glaringly obvious problems such as the inability to take out warheads once they separate from the missile booster (which typically happens well outside the range of such systems) and the fact that for very low investment by the enemy they are easily defeated by decoys.At least new planes, while useless in the sense that there is no real need for them, do actually meet their functional specifications.Diplomacy, education and improvement of living standards worldwide are the only proven means for the reduction of violence, and are future-proof with respect to any new technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113230</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1265991360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
If you can create a perfect mirror, which can also stand temperatures of reentry into atmosphere without losing reflective quality, then yes. But we live in a real world and mirrors are not perfect and are not that tough. They don't deflect 100\% of light. High power laser beam will melt mirror. Mirror might reflect laser for some really short period of time. Once mirror starts melting, it will stop deflecting laser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wondered , would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat ?
If you can create a perfect mirror , which can also stand temperatures of reentry into atmosphere without losing reflective quality , then yes .
But we live in a real world and mirrors are not perfect and are not that tough .
They do n't deflect 100 \ % of light .
High power laser beam will melt mirror .
Mirror might reflect laser for some really short period of time .
Once mirror starts melting , it will stop deflecting laser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?
If you can create a perfect mirror, which can also stand temperatures of reentry into atmosphere without losing reflective quality, then yes.
But we live in a real world and mirrors are not perfect and are not that tough.
They don't deflect 100\% of light.
High power laser beam will melt mirror.
Mirror might reflect laser for some really short period of time.
Once mirror starts melting, it will stop deflecting laser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116652</id>
	<title>Star Wars won't work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266004680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Wars won't work<br>The gas still gets through<br>It can get right on you<br>And what about those germs now<br>Star Wars won't work<br>It's a piece of shit<br>Why are they even talkin' about it anymore<br>It's just an expensive bunch of nothing</p><p>-Frank Zappa</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Wars wo n't workThe gas still gets throughIt can get right on youAnd what about those germs nowStar Wars wo n't workIt 's a piece of shitWhy are they even talkin ' about it anymoreIt 's just an expensive bunch of nothing-Frank Zappa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Wars won't workThe gas still gets throughIt can get right on youAnd what about those germs nowStar Wars won't workIt's a piece of shitWhy are they even talkin' about it anymoreIt's just an expensive bunch of nothing-Frank Zappa</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113574</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265992860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not for long, because mirrors are far from perfect and any dust particles on the missile would also heat up rapidly and as it heats heats up the reflection ability will likely be soon lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not for long , because mirrors are far from perfect and any dust particles on the missile would also heat up rapidly and as it heats heats up the reflection ability will likely be soon lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not for long, because mirrors are far from perfect and any dust particles on the missile would also heat up rapidly and as it heats heats up the reflection ability will likely be soon lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31118752</id>
	<title>Re:Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>orient</author>
	<datestamp>1265968440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean the implications of receiving an inimaginable amount of money and neverending supply and support contracts from the US government?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the implications of receiving an inimaginable amount of money and neverending supply and support contracts from the US government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the implications of receiving an inimaginable amount of money and neverending supply and support contracts from the US government?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112910</id>
	<title>Unfortunately</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>these demonstrations aren't exactly peer reviewed.</p><p>Not many people doubt that a directed energy weapon can, under the right conditions, shoot down a ballistic missile.  The question is whether we'll see on, in our lifetime, shoot down a ballistic missile under realistic conditions.  Then being able to that reliably enough.</p><p>I'm not doctrinally against developing directed energy weapons, or even anti-missile systems, especially boost-phase systems.  But there's been too much fakery and even downright fraud in these programs for me to lend much credence to any "breakthroughs".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>these demonstrations are n't exactly peer reviewed.Not many people doubt that a directed energy weapon can , under the right conditions , shoot down a ballistic missile .
The question is whether we 'll see on , in our lifetime , shoot down a ballistic missile under realistic conditions .
Then being able to that reliably enough.I 'm not doctrinally against developing directed energy weapons , or even anti-missile systems , especially boost-phase systems .
But there 's been too much fakery and even downright fraud in these programs for me to lend much credence to any " breakthroughs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these demonstrations aren't exactly peer reviewed.Not many people doubt that a directed energy weapon can, under the right conditions, shoot down a ballistic missile.
The question is whether we'll see on, in our lifetime, shoot down a ballistic missile under realistic conditions.
Then being able to that reliably enough.I'm not doctrinally against developing directed energy weapons, or even anti-missile systems, especially boost-phase systems.
But there's been too much fakery and even downright fraud in these programs for me to lend much credence to any "breakthroughs".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116054</id>
	<title>Missing the point?</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1266002160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I have to admit that the technology does have a cool factor, I fail to see its usefulness in the wars fought by the US today.</p><p>Back in WWII, both sides were bombing the crap out of eachother with little to no regard to civilian casualties. In a case like this, this invention could be quite useful. But let's look at the wars that the US is fighting now:</p><p>-War on drugs: So when's the last time Pablo Escobar directed artillery or missiles towards US troops or population?</p><p>-War on terror: The ennemy doesn't have missiles either... this laser thing's useless against soldiers and IEDs.</p><p>If you insist of putting that cash into the war machine, then it could be spent on finding better ways to detect or protect against improvised explosive devices.</p><p>This is just propaganda to dissuade others from using missiles against us. Instead on working on tech to stop missile attacks, why don't you work on fixing the reasons why the ennemy wants to send a missile towards you in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I have to admit that the technology does have a cool factor , I fail to see its usefulness in the wars fought by the US today.Back in WWII , both sides were bombing the crap out of eachother with little to no regard to civilian casualties .
In a case like this , this invention could be quite useful .
But let 's look at the wars that the US is fighting now : -War on drugs : So when 's the last time Pablo Escobar directed artillery or missiles towards US troops or population ? -War on terror : The ennemy does n't have missiles either... this laser thing 's useless against soldiers and IEDs.If you insist of putting that cash into the war machine , then it could be spent on finding better ways to detect or protect against improvised explosive devices.This is just propaganda to dissuade others from using missiles against us .
Instead on working on tech to stop missile attacks , why do n't you work on fixing the reasons why the ennemy wants to send a missile towards you in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I have to admit that the technology does have a cool factor, I fail to see its usefulness in the wars fought by the US today.Back in WWII, both sides were bombing the crap out of eachother with little to no regard to civilian casualties.
In a case like this, this invention could be quite useful.
But let's look at the wars that the US is fighting now:-War on drugs: So when's the last time Pablo Escobar directed artillery or missiles towards US troops or population?-War on terror: The ennemy doesn't have missiles either... this laser thing's useless against soldiers and IEDs.If you insist of putting that cash into the war machine, then it could be spent on finding better ways to detect or protect against improvised explosive devices.This is just propaganda to dissuade others from using missiles against us.
Instead on working on tech to stop missile attacks, why don't you work on fixing the reasons why the ennemy wants to send a missile towards you in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113636</id>
	<title>Re:Why troll ?</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1265993100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on weather conditions couldn't an airplane agitate the atmosphere and attract lighting and dump lighting into a capacitor<br>
&nbsp; <br>Granted it isn't as on demand as this kind of system would need to be</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on weather conditions could n't an airplane agitate the atmosphere and attract lighting and dump lighting into a capacitor   Granted it is n't as on demand as this kind of system would need to be</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on weather conditions couldn't an airplane agitate the atmosphere and attract lighting and dump lighting into a capacitor
  Granted it isn't as on demand as this kind of system would need to be</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115490</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Platform</title>
	<author>renrutal</author>
	<datestamp>1266000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they could spend a supranonimillenary amount of money to make such aquatic plataform airborne, along with some anguineous lifeforms aboard, for massive damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they could spend a supranonimillenary amount of money to make such aquatic plataform airborne , along with some anguineous lifeforms aboard , for massive damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they could spend a supranonimillenary amount of money to make such aquatic plataform airborne, along with some anguineous lifeforms aboard, for massive damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112846</id>
	<title>Why troll ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It should be noted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... blah blah" .   If they hit the thing, that's the hard part.  Adding 1.21 Gigawatts to the existing laser (to destroy a solid fuel rocket) is the easy part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It should be noted ... blah blah " .
If they hit the thing , that 's the hard part .
Adding 1.21 Gigawatts to the existing laser ( to destroy a solid fuel rocket ) is the easy part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It should be noted ... blah blah" .
If they hit the thing, that's the hard part.
Adding 1.21 Gigawatts to the existing laser (to destroy a solid fuel rocket) is the easy part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113486</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1265992380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>14kW is two orders of magnitude too small, and you know it. Even 100kW is more than an order of magnitude too small.</htmltext>
<tokenext>14kW is two orders of magnitude too small , and you know it .
Even 100kW is more than an order of magnitude too small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>14kW is two orders of magnitude too small, and you know it.
Even 100kW is more than an order of magnitude too small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113082</id>
	<title>Re:Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>gadzook33</author>
	<datestamp>1265990700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, you'd also need a large spinning mirror.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , you 'd also need a large spinning mirror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, you'd also need a large spinning mirror.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</id>
	<title>Pink submarine</title>
	<author>RenHoek</author>
	<datestamp>1265990460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wondered , would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113990</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1265994360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you make nuclear weapons obsolete, you reopen the door to global total war that was closed at Nagasaki.  If nukes can't penetrate the defenses of warring nations, they will be free to send armies across their borders.<br> <br>

Or did you think the world suddenly became more civilized after WWII ended?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make nuclear weapons obsolete , you reopen the door to global total war that was closed at Nagasaki .
If nukes ca n't penetrate the defenses of warring nations , they will be free to send armies across their borders .
Or did you think the world suddenly became more civilized after WWII ended ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make nuclear weapons obsolete, you reopen the door to global total war that was closed at Nagasaki.
If nukes can't penetrate the defenses of warring nations, they will be free to send armies across their borders.
Or did you think the world suddenly became more civilized after WWII ended?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114058</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious vulnerability is....obvious?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265994660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch."</p><p>That's why strategic aircraft assets are stationed on appropriately guarded bases with sufficient folks to fend off intruders, just as they were in the good old days of Strategic Air Command (back before TAC ate the rest of the Air Force).</p><p>The enemy planning a missile attack that ABL is designed to mitigate isn't a major nation-state, but a smaller foe with fewer missiles. As nuclear proliferation among fanatic regimes ensures smallish nuclear war will happen, defensive preparations make sense. Likewise, ABL that can defeat rockets and other conventional systems will have use providing top cover against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch .
" That 's why strategic aircraft assets are stationed on appropriately guarded bases with sufficient folks to fend off intruders , just as they were in the good old days of Strategic Air Command ( back before TAC ate the rest of the Air Force ) .The enemy planning a missile attack that ABL is designed to mitigate is n't a major nation-state , but a smaller foe with fewer missiles .
As nuclear proliferation among fanatic regimes ensures smallish nuclear war will happen , defensive preparations make sense .
Likewise , ABL that can defeat rockets and other conventional systems will have use providing top cover against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch.
"That's why strategic aircraft assets are stationed on appropriately guarded bases with sufficient folks to fend off intruders, just as they were in the good old days of Strategic Air Command (back before TAC ate the rest of the Air Force).The enemy planning a missile attack that ABL is designed to mitigate isn't a major nation-state, but a smaller foe with fewer missiles.
As nuclear proliferation among fanatic regimes ensures smallish nuclear war will happen, defensive preparations make sense.
Likewise, ABL that can defeat rockets and other conventional systems will have use providing top cover against them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113434</id>
	<title>More successful</title>
	<author>mozzis</author>
	<datestamp>1265992260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A liquid-fueled missile was destroyed. A solid-fueled one was also engaged but the test stopped short of destroying it (probably for safety reasons.) A previous test did destroy a solid-fueled target


See: <a href="http://www.mda.mil/news/10news0002.html" title="mda.mil" rel="nofollow">the article at mda.mil.</a> [mda.mil]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A liquid-fueled missile was destroyed .
A solid-fueled one was also engaged but the test stopped short of destroying it ( probably for safety reasons .
) A previous test did destroy a solid-fueled target See : the article at mda.mil .
[ mda.mil ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A liquid-fueled missile was destroyed.
A solid-fueled one was also engaged but the test stopped short of destroying it (probably for safety reasons.
) A previous test did destroy a solid-fueled target


See: the article at mda.mil.
[mda.mil]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113136</id>
	<title>Re:Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's popcorn. I hate popcorn, put it away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's popcorn .
I hate popcorn , put it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's popcorn.
I hate popcorn, put it away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116648</id>
	<title>Re:Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1266004680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a good point, unless the person you are throwing your sack full of grenades at can't actually afford a tank, much less a chain saw tank.  If your enemy can only afford a red flyer wagon to move around with, then you've pretty much got the upper hand.  It's the same with space based weapons.  Sure if you are going up against China, they might be able to shoot your little toy out of the sky, but the U.S. is fighting some very low tech opponents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a good point , unless the person you are throwing your sack full of grenades at ca n't actually afford a tank , much less a chain saw tank .
If your enemy can only afford a red flyer wagon to move around with , then you 've pretty much got the upper hand .
It 's the same with space based weapons .
Sure if you are going up against China , they might be able to shoot your little toy out of the sky , but the U.S. is fighting some very low tech opponents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a good point, unless the person you are throwing your sack full of grenades at can't actually afford a tank, much less a chain saw tank.
If your enemy can only afford a red flyer wagon to move around with, then you've pretty much got the upper hand.
It's the same with space based weapons.
Sure if you are going up against China, they might be able to shoot your little toy out of the sky, but the U.S. is fighting some very low tech opponents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114156</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier, harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers. </p></div><p>The big question is: who is the enemy.<br>Me thinks that no country is MAD enough to try to start a war by firing (nuclear) missiles at the USA even without the missile defense.<br>Mutual destruction is guaranteed.<br>Building missile defenses does piss-off a lot off people all over the world and people who MIGHT try nukes, although I highly doubt they would even if they had them, wouldn't even think about missiles but starts with the (far easier and precise) option of putting Nukes in a cargo container...</p><p>Technology might be cool but I think a variant of this technology could undoubtedly be developed for less money and with more useful applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier , harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers .
The big question is : who is the enemy.Me thinks that no country is MAD enough to try to start a war by firing ( nuclear ) missiles at the USA even without the missile defense.Mutual destruction is guaranteed.Building missile defenses does piss-off a lot off people all over the world and people who MIGHT try nukes , although I highly doubt they would even if they had them , would n't even think about missiles but starts with the ( far easier and precise ) option of putting Nukes in a cargo container...Technology might be cool but I think a variant of this technology could undoubtedly be developed for less money and with more useful applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier, harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers.
The big question is: who is the enemy.Me thinks that no country is MAD enough to try to start a war by firing (nuclear) missiles at the USA even without the missile defense.Mutual destruction is guaranteed.Building missile defenses does piss-off a lot off people all over the world and people who MIGHT try nukes, although I highly doubt they would even if they had them, wouldn't even think about missiles but starts with the (far easier and precise) option of putting Nukes in a cargo container...Technology might be cool but I think a variant of this technology could undoubtedly be developed for less money and with more useful applications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113388</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1265992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on how good the mirror coating is. No mirror is perfect, so it will absorb some of the energy. If the coating starts to degrade, then you get a runaway reduction in effectiveness until the coating's vapourised. Whether that's on a short enough timescale for the laser to score a hit is the real question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on how good the mirror coating is .
No mirror is perfect , so it will absorb some of the energy .
If the coating starts to degrade , then you get a runaway reduction in effectiveness until the coating 's vapourised .
Whether that 's on a short enough timescale for the laser to score a hit is the real question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on how good the mirror coating is.
No mirror is perfect, so it will absorb some of the energy.
If the coating starts to degrade, then you get a runaway reduction in effectiveness until the coating's vapourised.
Whether that's on a short enough timescale for the laser to score a hit is the real question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113500</id>
	<title>Re:Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1265992440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber.***</p><p>Rather the reverse doncha think?  Might be a dandy tool for shooting holes in space-based military systems.</p><p>There's a difference between controlling the high ground and climbing a tree.  It's always seemed to me that putting weapons in space was sort of the equivalent of climbing a tree with a sack full of grenades then watching a tank haul over the horizon with a large chain saw mounted on the front.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber .
* * * Rather the reverse doncha think ?
Might be a dandy tool for shooting holes in space-based military systems.There 's a difference between controlling the high ground and climbing a tree .
It 's always seemed to me that putting weapons in space was sort of the equivalent of climbing a tree with a sack full of grenades then watching a tank haul over the horizon with a large chain saw mounted on the front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber.
***Rather the reverse doncha think?
Might be a dandy tool for shooting holes in space-based military systems.There's a difference between controlling the high ground and climbing a tree.
It's always seemed to me that putting weapons in space was sort of the equivalent of climbing a tree with a sack full of grenades then watching a tank haul over the horizon with a large chain saw mounted on the front.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113770</id>
	<title>On another note</title>
	<author>sectionboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265993580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>direct energy shots down a mosquito.

"The idea behind the "Death Star" laser is that it could be used to control mosquito populations in developing countries in hopes of reducing the number of deaths due to malaria, a disease frequently carried by the flying insects. The device was shown off during the TED 2010 conference and does in fact appear to be capable of tracking and killing mosquitoes. Oh, and it was built out of parts found on eBay."

<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5470148/this-is-a-mosquito-getting-killed-by-a-laser?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+gizmodo\%2Ffull+(Gizmodo)&amp;utm\_content=Google+Feedfetcher" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5470148/this-is-a-mosquito-getting-killed-by-a-laser?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+gizmodo\%2Ffull+(Gizmodo)&amp;utm\_content=Google+Feedfetcher</a> [gizmodo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>direct energy shots down a mosquito .
" The idea behind the " Death Star " laser is that it could be used to control mosquito populations in developing countries in hopes of reducing the number of deaths due to malaria , a disease frequently carried by the flying insects .
The device was shown off during the TED 2010 conference and does in fact appear to be capable of tracking and killing mosquitoes .
Oh , and it was built out of parts found on eBay .
" http : //gizmodo.com/5470148/this-is-a-mosquito-getting-killed-by-a-laser ? utm \ _source = feedburner&amp;utm \ _medium = feed&amp;utm \ _campaign = Feed \ % 3A + gizmodo \ % 2Ffull + ( Gizmodo ) &amp;utm \ _content = Google + Feedfetcher [ gizmodo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>direct energy shots down a mosquito.
"The idea behind the "Death Star" laser is that it could be used to control mosquito populations in developing countries in hopes of reducing the number of deaths due to malaria, a disease frequently carried by the flying insects.
The device was shown off during the TED 2010 conference and does in fact appear to be capable of tracking and killing mosquitoes.
Oh, and it was built out of parts found on eBay.
"

http://gizmodo.com/5470148/this-is-a-mosquito-getting-killed-by-a-laser?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+gizmodo\%2Ffull+(Gizmodo)&amp;utm\_content=Google+Feedfetcher [gizmodo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114228</id>
	<title>ima build only solid fuel now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this message approved by the iranian defense league nuclear missle testign facility<br>and the north korean nuclear american fire at you range masters.</p><p>yes thank you for telling us not to use liquid fuel....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this message approved by the iranian defense league nuclear missle testign facilityand the north korean nuclear american fire at you range masters.yes thank you for telling us not to use liquid fuel... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this message approved by the iranian defense league nuclear missle testign facilityand the north korean nuclear american fire at you range masters.yes thank you for telling us not to use liquid fuel....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</id>
	<title>Popcorn and other practical applications</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265989140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber. But don't worry, you'd have to get someone to build you optics for a phase conjugate target tracking system to do something like that. And no one is stupid enough to do that without realizing the implications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber .
But do n't worry , you 'd have to get someone to build you optics for a phase conjugate target tracking system to do something like that .
And no one is stupid enough to do that without realizing the implications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber.
But don't worry, you'd have to get someone to build you optics for a phase conjugate target tracking system to do something like that.
And no one is stupid enough to do that without realizing the implications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113724</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265993400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... [T]he knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors.</p></div><p>Did you think about what you just said? You want the US to be the only nuclear power.<br> <br>That would make <b>everybody</b> else extremely edgy. Bad, bad idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... [ T ] he knowledge that the US could , in 20 years , not only knock out all of your incoming warheads , but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors.Did you think about what you just said ?
You want the US to be the only nuclear power .
That would make everybody else extremely edgy .
Bad , bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... [T]he knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors.Did you think about what you just said?
You want the US to be the only nuclear power.
That would make everybody else extremely edgy.
Bad, bad idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113888</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265993940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, and where will those 100kW come from?<br>Certainly not from any batteries in that jet. Or else it will become so sluggish that it either has to carry huge engines, and become a bomber, or will be shot down by everything that now is quicker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , and where will those 100kW come from ? Certainly not from any batteries in that jet .
Or else it will become so sluggish that it either has to carry huge engines , and become a bomber , or will be shot down by everything that now is quicker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, and where will those 100kW come from?Certainly not from any batteries in that jet.
Or else it will become so sluggish that it either has to carry huge engines, and become a bomber, or will be shot down by everything that now is quicker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113828</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265993760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?</p></div></blockquote><p>Unlikely.  It needs to be a front surface mirror, or else the laser will simply take effect in whatever (glass or plastic) makes up the front portion of the mirror.  Even if it is a front surface mirror, such mirrors are very susceptible to scratches, dings, oxidation,  and other damage that will render it vulnerable.  Even minor amounts of corrosion or staining (invisible to the naked eye) can compromise the protection the mirror provides and you can't put a protective coating on the mirror to protect it from such...<br>
&nbsp; <br>Not to mention that such a delicate and vulnerable coating is incompatible with the handling and operational environment of the battlefield missiles the ABL is designed to work against.<br>
&nbsp; <br>And, before anyone asks, pretty much the same is true of spinning the missile.  Spinning introduces a whole host of significant problems for the missile designer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wondered , would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat ? Unlikely .
It needs to be a front surface mirror , or else the laser will simply take effect in whatever ( glass or plastic ) makes up the front portion of the mirror .
Even if it is a front surface mirror , such mirrors are very susceptible to scratches , dings , oxidation , and other damage that will render it vulnerable .
Even minor amounts of corrosion or staining ( invisible to the naked eye ) can compromise the protection the mirror provides and you ca n't put a protective coating on the mirror to protect it from such.. .   Not to mention that such a delicate and vulnerable coating is incompatible with the handling and operational environment of the battlefield missiles the ABL is designed to work against .
  And , before anyone asks , pretty much the same is true of spinning the missile .
Spinning introduces a whole host of significant problems for the missile designer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?Unlikely.
It needs to be a front surface mirror, or else the laser will simply take effect in whatever (glass or plastic) makes up the front portion of the mirror.
Even if it is a front surface mirror, such mirrors are very susceptible to scratches, dings, oxidation,  and other damage that will render it vulnerable.
Even minor amounts of corrosion or staining (invisible to the naked eye) can compromise the protection the mirror provides and you can't put a protective coating on the mirror to protect it from such...
  Not to mention that such a delicate and vulnerable coating is incompatible with the handling and operational environment of the battlefield missiles the ABL is designed to work against.
  And, before anyone asks, pretty much the same is true of spinning the missile.
Spinning introduces a whole host of significant problems for the missile designer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113864</id>
	<title>Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!)</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265993880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>they've pretty much been whipping on the US Air Force when it comes to both aircraft and lasers and missile defense systems.</b></p><p>This has been going on since the 1950s.</p><p>Navy: F-8 Crusader. Air Force: F-100, F-101, etc...<br>Navy: F-4 Phantom II Air Force: F-101, F-105  - Result: AF forced to buy Navy planes.<br>Navy: A-4 and A-7.  Air Force: THUNDERCHIEF! followed by A-7 (another AF forced to buy Navy planes)<br>Navy: Standard Missile (Ground to air)  Air Force: Bunch of crap. Nike, Bomarc, etc...<br>Navy: Sparrow  AAM Air Force: Falcon AAM<br>Navy: Phoenix AAM  Air Force: Still Falcon AAM<br>Navy: Trident  Air Force: MX  - Guess which one is still in service.<br>Navy: F-14 Air Force: F-15.  Close, but the Navy aircraft had superior long range ability (100+Mile range with Phoenix AAM) and the Air Force craft was a little better dogfighter.</p><p>Basically, there are very few situations where the Navy has had inferior equipment to the Air Force since the mid 1950s.  When it's close, as in the F-16 vs F/A-18 or the F-14 vs the F-15 (hated seeing the Tomcat wear out, carrier life is rough) usually the Navy aircraft costs a lot less to operate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 've pretty much been whipping on the US Air Force when it comes to both aircraft and lasers and missile defense systems.This has been going on since the 1950s.Navy : F-8 Crusader .
Air Force : F-100 , F-101 , etc...Navy : F-4 Phantom II Air Force : F-101 , F-105 - Result : AF forced to buy Navy planes.Navy : A-4 and A-7 .
Air Force : THUNDERCHIEF !
followed by A-7 ( another AF forced to buy Navy planes ) Navy : Standard Missile ( Ground to air ) Air Force : Bunch of crap .
Nike , Bomarc , etc...Navy : Sparrow AAM Air Force : Falcon AAMNavy : Phoenix AAM Air Force : Still Falcon AAMNavy : Trident Air Force : MX - Guess which one is still in service.Navy : F-14 Air Force : F-15 .
Close , but the Navy aircraft had superior long range ability ( 100 + Mile range with Phoenix AAM ) and the Air Force craft was a little better dogfighter.Basically , there are very few situations where the Navy has had inferior equipment to the Air Force since the mid 1950s .
When it 's close , as in the F-16 vs F/A-18 or the F-14 vs the F-15 ( hated seeing the Tomcat wear out , carrier life is rough ) usually the Navy aircraft costs a lot less to operate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they've pretty much been whipping on the US Air Force when it comes to both aircraft and lasers and missile defense systems.This has been going on since the 1950s.Navy: F-8 Crusader.
Air Force: F-100, F-101, etc...Navy: F-4 Phantom II Air Force: F-101, F-105  - Result: AF forced to buy Navy planes.Navy: A-4 and A-7.
Air Force: THUNDERCHIEF!
followed by A-7 (another AF forced to buy Navy planes)Navy: Standard Missile (Ground to air)  Air Force: Bunch of crap.
Nike, Bomarc, etc...Navy: Sparrow  AAM Air Force: Falcon AAMNavy: Phoenix AAM  Air Force: Still Falcon AAMNavy: Trident  Air Force: MX  - Guess which one is still in service.Navy: F-14 Air Force: F-15.
Close, but the Navy aircraft had superior long range ability (100+Mile range with Phoenix AAM) and the Air Force craft was a little better dogfighter.Basically, there are very few situations where the Navy has had inferior equipment to the Air Force since the mid 1950s.
When it's close, as in the F-16 vs F/A-18 or the F-14 vs the F-15 (hated seeing the Tomcat wear out, carrier life is rough) usually the Navy aircraft costs a lot less to operate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31126856</id>
	<title>I have weapons of mass destruction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266075780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LMFAO COME an and  threaten me!  Texas has oil let's bomb those fuckers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LMFAO COME an and threaten me !
Texas has oil let 's bomb those fuckers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LMFAO COME an and  threaten me!
Texas has oil let's bomb those fuckers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113868</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ballistic missiles are not the only vector for nuclear bomb. Classical bombers (more or less sealth to radar) can be used for that purpose. Remember the good old 50's with the massive bombers on permanent patrol over europe. Have ABL, you'll have this back.</p><p>On a side note, destroying a missile on the upward course is quite easy. Destroying a missile launched from a silent submarine somewhere that takes an orbital course before falling on you at 10x supersonic speed is another problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballistic missiles are not the only vector for nuclear bomb .
Classical bombers ( more or less sealth to radar ) can be used for that purpose .
Remember the good old 50 's with the massive bombers on permanent patrol over europe .
Have ABL , you 'll have this back.On a side note , destroying a missile on the upward course is quite easy .
Destroying a missile launched from a silent submarine somewhere that takes an orbital course before falling on you at 10x supersonic speed is another problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballistic missiles are not the only vector for nuclear bomb.
Classical bombers (more or less sealth to radar) can be used for that purpose.
Remember the good old 50's with the massive bombers on permanent patrol over europe.
Have ABL, you'll have this back.On a side note, destroying a missile on the upward course is quite easy.
Destroying a missile launched from a silent submarine somewhere that takes an orbital course before falling on you at 10x supersonic speed is another problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115106</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For this not to be a complete waste, you have to develop a system that shoots down 100\% of the missiles 100\% of the time.  Good luck with that.  Anything less means that all our opponents have to do is lob enough missiles our way and we'll get hurt.  Bad.  Sure they may get fried into oblivion by the counter attack, but there seem to be countries willing to go this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For this not to be a complete waste , you have to develop a system that shoots down 100 \ % of the missiles 100 \ % of the time .
Good luck with that .
Anything less means that all our opponents have to do is lob enough missiles our way and we 'll get hurt .
Bad. Sure they may get fried into oblivion by the counter attack , but there seem to be countries willing to go this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this not to be a complete waste, you have to develop a system that shoots down 100\% of the missiles 100\% of the time.
Good luck with that.
Anything less means that all our opponents have to do is lob enough missiles our way and we'll get hurt.
Bad.  Sure they may get fried into oblivion by the counter attack, but there seem to be countries willing to go this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115970</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1266001800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?</p><p>No.  The peak electric field strength is such that electrons are ripped right off the atoms of the target.  They then form a plasma which absorbs the radiation, heating and vaporizing the target.  In fact a mirror surface would make things worse by doubling the intensity at the surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat ? No .
The peak electric field strength is such that electrons are ripped right off the atoms of the target .
They then form a plasma which absorbs the radiation , heating and vaporizing the target .
In fact a mirror surface would make things worse by doubling the intensity at the surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?No.
The peak electric field strength is such that electrons are ripped right off the atoms of the target.
They then form a plasma which absorbs the radiation, heating and vaporizing the target.
In fact a mirror surface would make things worse by doubling the intensity at the surface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114306</id>
	<title>Very impressive</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1265995560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty tough to get a missile to arrive at the exact place and time that a weapon is firing at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty tough to get a missile to arrive at the exact place and time that a weapon is firing at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty tough to get a missile to arrive at the exact place and time that a weapon is firing at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113238</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265991360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well it might or might not be true. That's the point of propaganda. This news is also being revealed while the USA and China are being pissed at each others over Taiwan. It might be a coincidence, but it sure is a useful coincidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it might or might not be true .
That 's the point of propaganda .
This news is also being revealed while the USA and China are being pissed at each others over Taiwan .
It might be a coincidence , but it sure is a useful coincidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it might or might not be true.
That's the point of propaganda.
This news is also being revealed while the USA and China are being pissed at each others over Taiwan.
It might be a coincidence, but it sure is a useful coincidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116168</id>
	<title>Re:Great.</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1266002580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An impressive amount of wrong in a one-line post.</p><p>1) This is a boost-phase defense, so it works when the missile is over the hostile country, not over the U.S.<br>2) Because of Russia's size, we probably won't be able to use this weapon against them unless they let us fly our airborne laser over their country, which is unlikely.  This is for defending against launches by smaller countries.<br>3) It's pretty much impossible to cause a nuke to detonate by firing a weapon at it.<br>4) Debris from a shot-down nuke may be unhealthy if it lands on your house, but it's a whole lot better than vaporizing Manhattan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An impressive amount of wrong in a one-line post.1 ) This is a boost-phase defense , so it works when the missile is over the hostile country , not over the U.S.2 ) Because of Russia 's size , we probably wo n't be able to use this weapon against them unless they let us fly our airborne laser over their country , which is unlikely .
This is for defending against launches by smaller countries.3 ) It 's pretty much impossible to cause a nuke to detonate by firing a weapon at it.4 ) Debris from a shot-down nuke may be unhealthy if it lands on your house , but it 's a whole lot better than vaporizing Manhattan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An impressive amount of wrong in a one-line post.1) This is a boost-phase defense, so it works when the missile is over the hostile country, not over the U.S.2) Because of Russia's size, we probably won't be able to use this weapon against them unless they let us fly our airborne laser over their country, which is unlikely.
This is for defending against launches by smaller countries.3) It's pretty much impossible to cause a nuke to detonate by firing a weapon at it.4) Debris from a shot-down nuke may be unhealthy if it lands on your house, but it's a whole lot better than vaporizing Manhattan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114664</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I'll never understand about this</title>
	<author>S77IM</author>
	<datestamp>1265996820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we worry about missiles when it is so easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US inside of drug shipments?  The enemy wouldn't even need to be a suicide bomber.  They could just rent an apartment, put the thing on a 3-week timer, and leave the country.  This is not a problem that can be solved by better lasers.</p><p>
&nbsp; -- 77IM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we worry about missiles when it is so easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US inside of drug shipments ?
The enemy would n't even need to be a suicide bomber .
They could just rent an apartment , put the thing on a 3-week timer , and leave the country .
This is not a problem that can be solved by better lasers .
  -- 77IM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we worry about missiles when it is so easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US inside of drug shipments?
The enemy wouldn't even need to be a suicide bomber.
They could just rent an apartment, put the thing on a 3-week timer, and leave the country.
This is not a problem that can be solved by better lasers.
  -- 77IM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113274</id>
	<title>Pictures of the Airborne laser</title>
	<author>clarkes1</author>
	<datestamp>1265991540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can be found here:

<a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/12/338371/airborne-laser-shoots-down-1st-ballistic-target.html" title="flightglobal.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/12/338371/airborne-laser-shoots-down-1st-ballistic-target.html</a> [flightglobal.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can be found here : http : //www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/12/338371/airborne-laser-shoots-down-1st-ballistic-target.html [ flightglobal.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can be found here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/12/338371/airborne-laser-shoots-down-1st-ballistic-target.html [flightglobal.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113600</id>
	<title>25 years to show Star Wars might work</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1265992980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$300 billion and counting.  We could probably buy all the enemy's missiles at this rate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 300 billion and counting .
We could probably buy all the enemy 's missiles at this rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$300 billion and counting.
We could probably buy all the enemy's missiles at this rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113362</id>
	<title>Re:Pink submarine</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1265991900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes, if your mirror can reflect infrared/visible and ultraviolet light to a significant percent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , if your mirror can reflect infrared/visible and ultraviolet light to a significant percent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, if your mirror can reflect infrared/visible and ultraviolet light to a significant percent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112864</id>
	<title>Obvious vulnerability is....obvious?</title>
	<author>Smidge207</author>
	<datestamp>1265989560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the laser platform be available for launch when the need arises? IMHO, the airborne laser platform is vulnerable on the ground. An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch. Such forces would already be in-country weeks or months before their strike, perhaps organized as a sports team or as individuals on tourist or student visas.</p><p>Meh, just my $.02.</p><p>=Smidge=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the laser platform be available for launch when the need arises ?
IMHO , the airborne laser platform is vulnerable on the ground .
An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch .
Such forces would already be in-country weeks or months before their strike , perhaps organized as a sports team or as individuals on tourist or student visas.Meh , just my $ .02. = Smidge =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the laser platform be available for launch when the need arises?
IMHO, the airborne laser platform is vulnerable on the ground.
An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch.
Such forces would already be in-country weeks or months before their strike, perhaps organized as a sports team or as individuals on tourist or student visas.Meh, just my $.02.=Smidge=</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113790</id>
	<title>Usefulness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see where this multi zillion dollar thing would be useful against the $3.00 mud huts of the Taliban.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see where this multi zillion dollar thing would be useful against the $ 3.00 mud huts of the Taliban .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see where this multi zillion dollar thing would be useful against the $3.00 mud huts of the Taliban.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114472</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1265996160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, laser pointers are usually between 1mW and 1000mW. The big M is for 'mega', and 1000MW is a lot of power. As in, power stations output around 200MW sort of quantity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , laser pointers are usually between 1mW and 1000mW .
The big M is for 'mega ' , and 1000MW is a lot of power .
As in , power stations output around 200MW sort of quantity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, laser pointers are usually between 1mW and 1000mW.
The big M is for 'mega', and 1000MW is a lot of power.
As in, power stations output around 200MW sort of quantity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114298</id>
	<title>Re:Interested but limited.</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1265995560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, Cruise Missiles -- or the Tomahawk at least which is the one I'm familiar with -- are unmanned aircraft that fly at fairly high speed at very low altitude.  I suspect your local police SWAT team could shoot one down if they knew where it was going to be at some time, and were waiting for it.</p><p>Not a good target for a laser I would think as the attacker will probably choose a route that makes maximum use of terrain features.  The target won't be in sight very long -- by intent.  And the laser's tracking will need to be able to slew very quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , Cruise Missiles -- or the Tomahawk at least which is the one I 'm familiar with -- are unmanned aircraft that fly at fairly high speed at very low altitude .
I suspect your local police SWAT team could shoot one down if they knew where it was going to be at some time , and were waiting for it.Not a good target for a laser I would think as the attacker will probably choose a route that makes maximum use of terrain features .
The target wo n't be in sight very long -- by intent .
And the laser 's tracking will need to be able to slew very quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, Cruise Missiles -- or the Tomahawk at least which is the one I'm familiar with -- are unmanned aircraft that fly at fairly high speed at very low altitude.
I suspect your local police SWAT team could shoot one down if they knew where it was going to be at some time, and were waiting for it.Not a good target for a laser I would think as the attacker will probably choose a route that makes maximum use of terrain features.
The target won't be in sight very long -- by intent.
And the laser's tracking will need to be able to slew very quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31126856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31124616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31118752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1350222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31124616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31117248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1350222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31112774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31116648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31115230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31114578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31118752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31126856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1350222.31113136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
