Debate on APS Directed‐Energy Weapons Study

NOV 01, 1987

Is it unduly pessimistic to conclude that it would take a decade or more of intensive research just to determine the feasibility of shielding the US with a system of high‐intensity laser and energetic particle beam weapons?

DOI: 10.1063/1.881090

Gregory H. Canavan

Nicolaas Bloembergen

C. Kumar N. Patel

In April, The American Physical Society issued a 424‐page report saying that “even in the best of circumstances, a decade or more of intensive research would be required to provide the technical knowledge needed for an informed decision about the potential effectiveness and survivability of directed‐energy weapon systems.” (See PHYSICS TODAY, May 1987, page S1.) In May, Los Alamos National Laboratory published a 70‐page paper by Gregory Canavan that is optimistic about a directed‐energy weapons system and critical of the APS study. (See PHYSICS TODAY, June, page 43.) In this debate Canavan criticizes the APS study on ten technical issues, and Nicolaas Bloembergen and Kumar Patel, the cochairmen of the APS study group, respond point by point.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. American Physical Society Study Group (N. Bloembergen, C. K. Patel, cochairmen), Report to The American Physical Society of the Study Group on Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons, APS, New York (April 1987);
Rev. Mod. Phys. 59(3) part II (July 1987).https://doi.org/RMPHAT
2. G. H. Canavan, Directed Energy Concepts for Strategic Defense, report no. LA‐UR 87‐1658, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N. M. (May 1987).
L. Wood, G. Canavan, Analysis of the APS Report, Congressional Record, 20 May 1987, p. E2005.
3. American Physical Society Study Group (N. Bloembergen, C. K. Patel, cochairmen), APS Directed Energy Study Group Responses to Critiques by Wood and Canavan, APS, New York (18 June 1987).
4. G. Canavan, A. Petschek, Satellite Allocation for Boost Phase Missile Intercept, report no. LA‐10926‐MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N. M. (April 1987)
and NTIS document no. DE 87007719, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. (1987); also submitted to Nature.
5. R. Garwin, Nature 315, 286 (1985).https://doi.org/NATUAS
6. G. Canavan, H. Flicker, O. Judd, K. Taggart, Comments on the OTA Paper on Directed Energy Missile Defense in Space, report no. LA‐UR 85‐3572, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N. M. (6 May 1984), p. 6 and appendix A.
7. Letters to PHYSICS TODAY, July 1986, pp. 13–15, 90–96. R. Jastrow, How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete, Little, Brown, Boston (1985).
8. G. Canavan, F. Seitz, Comments on Directed Energy Concepts for Strategic Defense, report no. LA‐UR 2150, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N. M. (June 1987); to appear in Nature.
9. G. H. Canavan, August 1985 briefing to APS study group. G. H. Canavan, letter to N. Bloembergen and C. K. Patel, Los Alamos letter P/AC:2O3, 12 August 1987.
10. R. Seitz, The Wall Street Journal, 15 July 1987, p. 29.
11. G. Field, D. Spergel, Science 231, 1387 (1986).https://doi.org/SCIEAS

More about the authors

Gregory H. Canavan, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Nicolaas Bloembergen, Harvard University.

C. Kumar N. Patel, AT&T Dell Laboratories.