Jerry,

>snip<

>>Having said that, then you'd think that some of the high explosive ordinances as you mentioned above would be the choice of the decision makers? It strikes me that whatever method is used that as little collateral damage as possible is inflicted. So, from what you know, we've progressed much further along than the smart cruise missles? Do you think that directed energy weapons are sufficiently advanced to play a role here then?
>
>I believe that 10 years of researh and testing can produce large changes in what was previously viewed as high tech weaponry. Better imaging techniques using a larger number of frequencies and massaging the data realtime with more advanced software techniques. Higher energy weapons that are more compact and effieient.
>
>Also, what many people don't realize is that when an energy weapon hits a target material is ablated at high temperatures. High enough to create plasmas. THe atoms and ionized molecules of the plasma continue to absorb energy until atoms are stripped of their electrons, creating highly charged postivie nuclei. At the outter edges of the plasma cloud electrons are re-absorbed by the nuclei and in the process of falling to lower atomic radii, they emit x-rays, and secondary alpha and beta emmissons. The amount of radiation emitted can be high enough to be leathal. So, even if the beam punched a hole through the roof of Ben Laden's SUV but missed him, he would probably be the recipiant of enough secondary radiation to kill him.

Facinating indeed. I know that they can transport the high energy weapons in 747's but I'd bet that we don't see them, though who knows? My guess would be some 1000+# earth-pounders.