New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
(1749 previous messages)
- 08:41pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1750
eurocore - 08:13pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1744 of 1746)
I'm sorry to correct you, but 100km is 10^5m, therefore it
takes 10^5/(3*10^8) seconds to travel the distance.
You are right, I am wrong.
This is 0.33*10^-3 seconds, or 33ms. The round trip takes 66ms
33ms? Milliseconds or microseconds? It's 0.33 milliseconds or 330
microseconds. Times two for the round trip gives us 660 microseconds
or .66 milliseconds. (I was conservative but forgot the k in 100km.)
Your suggested time of 1/(1000000) second is 1
Thanks for reminding me.
66ms is 66,000 times longer.
Rub it in. But it's 0.66 ms, not 66ms for the round trip.
660 times longer.
But the point remains. How much can you make something heavy move
in less than a thousanth of a second?
I agree with the X-rays, but they pass through thin sheet
metal - the heating would not just occur at the surface and
so would be more defuse than visible which has very low
Well, the issue with metal is whether the light will reflect off
of it. Not penetrate. There's no one rule. There are issues like
relaxation time where the frequency is so high that the electrons
can't act like conductors since they can't move fast enough.
- 08:45pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1751
Interesting selection of quotes.
It's a interesting question which I mentioned a little about in
the global warming forum.
I hope there is a solution, but I think GWB has little intention
of changing his mind.
It reminds me slightly of the South African government's refusal
to buy anti-AIDS drugs, because 'the verdict on HIV is still
uncertain'. They were very keen to save money to prevent damage to
the economy and it might be that GWB is letting his desire to
believe what he wants overide the (probably) truth.
HIV might not cause AIDs, Global warming might not be
occurring... Policy, however, should be based on probabilities, not
possibilities and the decisions made in these two cases, (assuming
GWB isn't going to suddenly announce big emission cuts in a new
treaty!), seem to be based on desire rather than science.
- 08:47pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1752
We agree about a good deal. So maybe I'm wrong - and we get a
missile defense system tomorrow?
There are STILL big vulnerabilities.
Tom, you say
" I'm convinced it's morality, distaste at the
method's diplomatic reprocussions and fear of US reprisal that
prevents the US's enemies doing this right now. I doubt any
western society, with current social controls, could prevent it
Dirac has said similar things.
And it is those moral arguments that we need to reinforce, and
solidify with policing, and diplomacy.
I'm done in. I've been up 19 hours. I'll have a beer now, and be
back in the morning.
- 08:50pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1753
0.33*10^-3 is 330 microseconds, not 33ms.
(I was wrong! :->)
- 09:02pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1754
eurocore - 08:37pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1749 of 1750)
...The economic cost would need to be justified too. If it is
cheaper to topple every non-US aligned government in the
world by simple bribery ("The Dollars for Democracy Scheme"),
we'd probably be better off with the low-tech solution.
I'm all for it, but I don't think we can meet the price. Much
less have the political will to give away the vast amount of money.
Do remember though, if the Korean were sufficiently dedicated,
(and unconcerned about diplomatic effects),
The little toad, for the fleeting moments left in his miserable
little life would have much more to worry about than diplomatic
it would be possible to set off terrorist nuclear bomb in
major cities, like NY.
It wouldn't be a nuke probably. And yes, this is a real problem.
You betcha. But to launch the plan is a very risky move. It's safe
to assume we know more than we are telling. If the NSA is watching
for anything, they are watching for this. (Hi there guys, looks like
you are doing a good job to me.) It would be dealt with just like a
launch of ICBM's. You would need to involve other people. It would
take time to get there. Lots of drawbacks. Lots easier to just push
a button if the other guy can't do anything about it. A sure thing
verses a very foolish risky move.
I'm convinced it's morality, distaste at the method's
diplomatic reprocussions and fear of US reprisal
Oh, I suspect "fear of US reprisal" is about 99.99% of what keeps
Saddam in check.
that prevents the US's enemies doing this right now. I doubt
any western society, with current social controls, could
prevent it occurring.
Yeah, among other thing, we would be setting ourselves up for a
Big Brother way of life. It would take a very clever system to make
sure it didn't turn into a real Big Brother. Probably impossible
since no axiomatic system is complete.
I'm not saying the missile system isn't worthwile (despite the
above), but it's an umbrella that relies on rain from above,
That's a fact.
- 09:13pm Mar 29, 2001 EST (#1755
"since no axiomatic system is complete."
New York Times on the Web Forums Science