![\"As](\"https:\/\/cdn.defenseone.com\/media\/img\/upload\/2018\/03\/21\/A20070004000cu01\/defense-large.jpg\")
The next thing in space-based weapons\u00a0<\/strong>could be decades old, according to Michael Griffin, the first defense undersecretary for research and\u00a0engineering.<\/p>\n\u201cDirected energy is more than just big lasers,\u201d Griffin said. \u201cThat\u2019s important. High-powered microwave approaches can effect an electronics kill. The same with the neutral particle beam systems we explored briefly in the 1990s\u201d for use in space-based anti-missile systems. Such weapons can be \u201cuseful in a variety of environments\u201d and have the \u201cadvantage of being non-attributable,\u201d meaning that it can be hard to pin an attack with a particle weapon on any particular culprit since it leaves no evidence behind of who or even what did the\u00a0damage.<\/p>\n
Like lasers, neutral-particle beams focus beams of energy that travel in straight lines, unaffected by electromagnetic fields. But instead of light, neutral-particle beams use composed of accelerated subatomic particles traveling at near-light speed, making them easier to work with (though the folks that run\u00a0CERN<\/span>\u2019s\u00a0hadron collider\u00a0may disagree). When its particles touche the surface of a target, they takes on a charge that allows them to penetrate the target\u2019s shell or exterior more\u00a0deeply.<\/p>\n This all makes\u00a0neutral-particle beams attractive as space-based anti-missile systems. Over the years, various defense companies have released mockups of proposed designs that seem to come out of an issue of\u00a0Popular Mechanics\u00a0<\/em>circa 1950.<\/p>\n The Pentagon first tested the concept in the late 1980s as part of a program called the Neutral Particle Beam, or\u00a0NPB<\/span>. According to a 1990\u00a0writeup\u00a0that military scientists sent to lawmakers, it explored the possibility of a space-based weapon that could \u201ckill missiles and reentry vehicles in the boost, post-boost, and mid-course portion of an\u00a0ICBM<\/span>\u00a0trajectory as well as discriminated objects during the midcourse phase\u201d \u2014 meaning a defensive system that could \u00a0knock out missiles as they were leaving the launch pad or flying in space toward their\u00a0target.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n In July, 1989, the program put a neutral-particle beam into orbit as part of a project called the\u00a0Beam Experiment Aboard a Rocket, which analysts described as \u201ca major success for the\u00a0NPB<\/span>program.\u201d The tests showed that the weapon could be ruggedized for space launch and operation and that the beam was sufficiently narrow to hit a\u00a0target.<\/p>\n The writeup concluded that a neutral-particle beam would be \u201cdifficult, if not impossible, to countermeasure in both the kill and discrimination role since it penetrates in-depth into the target. Analysis and tests have been conducted to verify that the entry level\u00a0NPB<\/span>\u00a0can defeat all proposed counter-measures to the beam-target interaction. It is also effective against homing direct assent [anti-satellite] which allows the\u00a0NPB<\/span>\u00a0to defend itself and other space-based\u00a0assets.\u201d<\/p>\n Griffin did not say that he welcomed particle beam ideas based\u00a0specifically<\/em>\u00a0in space. Nevertheless, because space was the environment that the\u00a0U.S.<\/span>\u201cexplored briefly in the 1990s\u201d for such weapons, that is what his comments convey. He drove home this point, saying \u201cWe should not lose our way\u2026 with some of the other technologies that were pioneered in the 80s and the early 1990s and now stand available for renewed effort\u2026I will be very welcoming of other approaches that have not had a lot of focus in recent years or recent\u00a0decades.\u201d<\/p>\n He refused to answer reporter requests for clarification on his comments after his\u00a0presentation.<\/p>\n Griffin did express some caution about a different take on directed-energy anti-missile weapons: the Low Power Laser Demonstrator program, to which the military has already devoted\u00a0$66 million\u00a0in the most recent budget request. The\u00a0LPLD<\/span>\u00a0seeks to put a laser aboard a drone to shoot down missile just after launch. \u201cI think frankly I\u2019m more concerned about exactly how high you have to be in the atmosphere to propagate a laser beam with sufficient density to score a kill at a reasonable range,\u201d Griffin said. \u201cI\u2019ve found that I can get an informed opinion that says you can\u2019t do it. And another opinion that says you can. I think that jury\u2019s still\u00a0out.\u201d<\/p>\n And so, he said, when it comes to striking North Korean missiles before or soon after launch, the most practical near-term solution remains still \u201ckinetic effects\u201d or missiles, \u201cespecially against adversary countries where we can conduct airborne operations not too far off their\u00a0shores.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/admin.govexec.com\/media\/screen_shot_2018-03-21_at_9.34.52_am.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/admin.govexec.com\/media\/screen_shot_2018-03-21_at_9.34.11_am.png\")
<\/p>\n