The sole mention of directed energy:

> Directed energy has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative, but introduces its own scheduling constraints — dwell time, platform coverage, atmospheric degradation — with similar scaling issues

The author is doing the thing where a writer tries to bamboozle the reader into a conclusion without having to prove it by overwhelming the reader with nouns. Life is too short for shitty gosh gallops.

▲

myrmidon 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are basically complaining that the article is not about a your preferred, different topic.

Directed energy defense does not really compete with a system like GMD at all, because the range is extremely limited by comparison.

The US might be able to justify throwing a few billion at a few dozens of ICBM interceptors stationed in a handful of sites, but protecting every potential target (city, military base) with some kind of laser array is obviously unrealistic.

▲

tonnydourado 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Gotta say, did not know direct energy weapons were actually leaving science fiction and entering the real world yet, but it seems they're. It's obviously not star trek level, but it's way more advanced than I expected

	▲	hedora 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They are, but only have a range of 1.2 miles in earth's atmosphere. Since they're on the ground, and presumably near the target (not the launcher), that means they're aimed at the warhead just before it hits the ground. I looked up the numbers, and, interestingly, ICBMs have to slow down before they hit their target. In the midrange flight, they travel at 15,000 mph, but at re-entry the warheads are only traveling at 1900 mph, or 0.58 miles per second. So, in the best case (the warhead is headed to the laser), the laser only gets 2.5 seconds of dwell time to intercept it. This rapidly decreases as the distance from the laser to the target increases (to 0 seconds of dwell time at 1.2 miles). Also, if the ICBM fires multiple warheads, or chaff, then you'd need to scale up the number of lasers or scale down the dwell time linearly, assuming they're all conveniently aimed within a small fraction of a mile of the laser (again, I'm assuming best-case). Current direct energy weapons have only been demoed against UAVs, probably for this reason. edit: my math is completely wrong: Modern nukes are optimally detonated at about 5000 ft above ground level. So, you get about 0.33 seconds of dwell time, assuming the attacker doesn't just set the warhead to detonate at a non-optimal (but still devastating) 1.2 mile altitude. https://remm.hhs.gov/zones_nucleardetonation.htm

▲

OrangePilled 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bearing in mind the three constraints quoted, which of these do you think a country's deployed directed-energy weapons (e.g., US, Israel, Russia) would be useful against:

https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/iran/

▲

hedora 10 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't really have to guess. None of those countries are using directed energy weapons, and they're all repeatedly getting hit by Iranian technology (so they have an incentive to test whatever they have).

	▲	OrangePilled 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> None of those countries are using directed energy weapons The USS Preble is equipped with HELIOS and is in Iran. [0] The US has also used "dazzlers" there too (as mentioned in the linked X thread). [1] Israel's Iron Beam was used against Hezbollah's drones (Iranian tech), with apparently limited return for it, this could explain why it won't be seeing action in Iran. [3][4] The only alleged case of Russia using DEWs was in August 2025. [5] Admittedly, it was a reach for me to even name them. As cost-effective (and cool-sounding) as DEWs are meant to be, there's a reason the US and Gulf states are beckoning Ukraine for help. At the same time, the Pentagon want's to ramp up development with 3 years and the US military at large seems to be bullish on lasers...[6] [0]: https://xcancel.com/sebastienroblin/status/20361510681621877... [1]: https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2026/u-s-navy... [3]: https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-889677 [4]: https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-889701 [5]: https://t.me/milinfolive/154597?single/ [6]: https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2026/03/18/th...