> I'm not convinced. I forgot the exact numbers but when I was trying to look at studies 5G alarmists cite* with an open mind some Energy Densities in question (being applied to animal subjects) were stronger than standing in front of one of those enormous ballistic missile tracking phased arrays (Which given the subject of this thread are also used for tracking satellites)
Thank you for implicitly putting me in the company of 5G alarmists.
It's an extremely inefficient weapon, is my point. Sending energy from orbit to earth sufficiently strong to kill someone would need something like thousands of gigawatts as a point source I think
> Sending energy from orbit to earth sufficiently strong to kill someone would need something like thousands of gigawatts as a point source I think
It doesn't need to kill people to have utility as a weapon.
Just look at how the unexplained alleged "sonic attacks" on the US embassy in Cuba played out.
I also presume there's potential for damaging sensitive electronics.
I'm not in objection of any of this, it's a military mission in nature. It just seems obvious to me that anything capable of beaming useful amounts of energy from space to power drones or anything portable on earth also has potential for direct use as a weapon. The energy density must be relatively high for things having such limited area to collect it.
Thank you for implicitly putting me in the company of 5G alarmists.
We're not talking about 5G here.