Armchair Military Analysis (Score 2, Interesting)

While the poster does bring up a few decent points regarding misinformation and what is likely happening in the field of space weaponization, he/she provides a number of facts and or arguments that I find either false, or confusing. Some of these items may be confusing to me merely because the writer is not launching into a full explanation for the sake of internet brevity, but some are simply incorrect, incomplete, or half true. "Many of these stories deal with weapons that travel through space on their way to surface targets--as military missiles have done since about 1944" 1944? Are you kidding me? The most advanced rocket technology at this time was the as yet unveiled V-3 being designed by the Germans. "Even planning a space-to-space attack can take hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a proper position." Again, this statement displays a seeming lack of understanding of the potential for orbital weapons. No space weapons platform would be reliant on a single satellite. Furthermore, for all I know geosynch orbit would still allow for fast delivery despite its very high orbital distance (around 22,000 miles). Furthermore the prospect of kinetic energy weapons, or dense rods "falling" from an orbiting satellite, is not all that farfetched and would be essentially impossible to intercept. As I suggested above, this individual did not do their homework. "It can't be a target if it's invisible to the weapon system under development." Evidently the writer is under the impression that thermal imaging is the only viable targetting system in existence, and furthermore that a weapon designed to use it could never have its principles applied to a weapon utilizing a more varied and complex targetting system.