Talk:Tactical High Energy Laser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV
The "oh this might not work" section seem to be much smaller than the "oh, it's great" section. Especially in light of the SCADS of evidence that this (and similar systems) won't work due to the desires of politicians being second to the simple facts of physics. I know, my POV is showing. I'll back it up with some citations soon. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
"Especially in light of the SCADS of evidence that this (and similar systems) won't work due to the desires of politicians being second to the simple facts of physics." Actually, I'm at a loss about what you're even talking about. There has been quite a bit of skepticism towards the idea of using missile-based interceptors against ballistic missiles. Though a laser-based system seems to be less complicated from a technical standpoint. My guess is that you taking your skepticism towards a *missile-based* means of *ballistic missile* interception and turning that into a much more generalized skepticism against all forms of interceptor technology (laser-based and otherwise) against a wide variety of targets (mortars, missiles, artillery, aircraft, etc). - BC, November 12, 2005
The tone and writing style of this article leads me to think that it (bar the final lines casting some doubt on the claims of accuracy) was taken from an official press release. I have no proof of this, but the article does appear word for word elsewhere on the internet.
[edit] Main Purpose of Article is Convey Descriptive Information About Stated Topic
...just like any other encyclopedia, not to be a political platform for debate about the topic. The article as written largely accomplishes that purpose. It does need some factual updates, as the MTHEL system has been recently delayed due to reduced Israeli financial participation.
Here are a few more links: Joema 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281536.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_MTHEL,,00.html
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20030505/energy_weapons.shtml
- After further review I agree there was some non-encyclopedic stuff of a press release nature. Removed or rephrased that to make it more factual. The purpose of an encyclopedia is NOT to present pro/con options about items, but convey factual descriptions. Joema 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
