Missile Defense

Not you too......I told Marabod (Russian Pol. Frm.) (and now you)......I said, BATTERIES......NOT SOLAR CELLS!!!"

Geez......

Laser "star"......the big research telescopes can now use declassified adaptive optic systems. I wasn't talking about the Laser optical axis, but that of the telescope. Beams are projected to a point of apparent infinity in the atmosphere along the optical axis of the scope. A reference "star" is thus formed; bright enough that a small pick-off mirror within the telescope can direct its light to an imager/analyzer.

You might be right about CPU time, but the larger the mirror, the more atmospheric distortion it has to cut through.

sonofnils - 08:20am May 27, 2000 EST (#12 of 11858)
Cogito Ergo Addendum

Brer, don't get stuck in this tarbaby forum.

As you recognized, it's a no-brainer.

brer_rabbit - 12:03pm May 27, 2000 EST (#13 of 11858)

kalter.rauch - 04:30am May 27, 2000 EDT (#11 of 12)

Not you too......I told Marabod (Russian Pol. Frm.) (and now you)......I said, BATTERIES......NOT SOLAR CELLS!!!"

Geez......

Marabod knows everything. You didn't know that? The Russia forum just ain't the same without big Tim. Vile lizard that he was.

Laser "star"......the big research telescopes can now use declassified adaptive optic systems. I wasn't talking about the Laser optical axis, but that of the telescope.

Uh oh, looks like you know what you are talkin' about. Declassified?

Beams are projected to a point of apparent infinity in the atmosphere along the optical axis of the scope. A reference "star" is thus formed; bright enough that a small pick-off mirror within the telescope can direct its light to an imager/analyzer.

The thing I read, (and it was not a big article), has a variety of telescopes looking through the same spot in the atmosphere at a variety of fixed stars. This gives enough info to solve the problem.

You might be right about CPU time, but the larger the mirror, the more atmospheric distortion it has to cut through.

The missle is moving very fast, but the atmosphere isn't. The atmosphere calculations don't need the extremely quick calculations as the aiming calculations. Plus, CPU time is getting to be less and less of a problem in general. It is growing exponentially. The truth is tha the CPU on a PC has been plenty fast for a while. About the only thing that need a faster CPU is games. I do a lot of 3D modeling and whether it is a 400 or a 600 doesn't matter. Now, ram is another story.

And it should be mentioned that zapping a ICBM after it enters the atmosphere is better than nothing.

toast117 - 10:27pm May 28, 2000 EST (#14 of 11858)

I must confess, I'm no physicist, so I'll have to leave feasibility entirely up to the rest of you. Instead, I'd like to open some discussion on the political ramification.

While it is true that an missile defense system is likely to have little effect on Russia, the same cannot be said about China/India/Pakistan/Taiwan/Korea/Japan. If the Chinese view a missile defense system as a threat (which, to be blunt, they should), their logical course of action would be to begin stockpiling long-range weapons. India and Pakistan, in turn, would (rightly) feel threatened by having a neighbor with such large nuclear capabilities, and begin stockpiling their own weapons. Say what you want about MAD, but the cold war was precisely that - neither the U.S. nor the Soviets were ever actively engaged in direct warfare with each other.

While it is true, ther remains a possibility that India and Pakistan will attempt to enhance their stockpiles regardless of an MDS, developing the system will almost certainly accelerate the process. This leaves an India and Pakistan fighting a border war with an active nuclear arsenal, while China develops an overwhelming tactical advantage over Taiwan... Unless we decide to commit ourselves to MDS in East Asia, granting Japan an overwhelming tactical advantage over South Korea, while encouraging China to further expand her capabilities...

The point: MDS might not affect START or relations with Mr. Putin much, but that's only part of the problem. Just because the cow's already out of the barn doesn't mean it's not worth trying to coax her back in.

brer_rabbit - 02:45am May 29, 2000 EST (#15 of 11858)

toast117 - 10:27pm May 28, 2000 EDT (#14 of 14)

A couple quick counterpoints. The idea is that the folks that can destroy us now will still be able to and the folks that can't won't be able to. Regardless of whether they build more missles or not. That we don't want to let North Korea have the ability to destroy us. That we can stop it and we should.

Taiwan has hydrogen bombs. Factor that into your China calculations.

We need to make a deal with Russia that makes them feel better about it. We need to bend over backwards and spend real money if necessary to do so. However, if they want another Cold War, because we don't want the Commie North Koreans and a lot others to be able to destroy us, so be it. Last I checked there were enough Russian weapons aimed at us to completely destroy us. Them building more doesn't matter.

jemoyer - 08:26pm May 29, 2000 EST (#16 of 11858)
life is not meant to be a slow form of suicide

Here's a link to an interesting article on the debate over whether the nuclear threat of "rogue" states (e.g., N. Korea) can be contained.

Threat of 'Rogue' States: Is it Reality of Rhetoric?

(11842 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense