New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

gisterme - 04:36am Nov 9, 2001 EST (#10302 of 10657)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 9/29/01 6:44am ):

" The lasar weapons programs are fatally flawed because reflective coatings are so effective (and can easily shed 999/1000ths of the energy that hits them http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm ) but even if that wasn't true,

It isn't true based on the link you've posted.

999/1000ths Robert? The link you posted says 98% reflectivity may be acheivable. That's 98/100ths. But what's more important is that you apparently have no understanding of the thin-film deposition process. That process involves deposition of layers of very pure chemicals onto a surface at precisely controlled temperatures. The only way to assure the purity of the gasses that are deposited onto the surface requires a vacuum chamber. You pump the chamber down to the hardest vacuum you can achieve and then add the pure gas to the chamber for deposition. This is not stuff you buy in 5 gallon cans and slop on with a paintbrush. Thin-film deposition is a very high-tech, time consuming process done in a clean-room environment.

And to do the kind of multiple-step process implied by the link you posted would require technology way beyond anything we've got for objects the size of an ICBM, let alone technological capability Saddam or the cave man may have. And you seem to ignore the fact that the link you posted is talking about applying this process to camera lenses or laser mirrors. These are tiny compared to ICBM bodies...and of course, the ICBM couldn't be fueled while going through such a high-temperature process. So that means that the ICBM would have to be extensively "handled", reflective coating and all to complete and deploy it after the coating was applied. But in order to maintain the integrety of the reflective coating that handling would need to be at least as careful as the handling of a camera lens or a telescope mirror.

I'm not as quick to proclaim impossibility as you are, Robert, but what you're hanging your hat on here is currently the "unobtanium" you're so fond of mentioning. You're the one who's being the technological optimist here.

"...they [lasers] require totally implausible optical resolution -- especially for a high power system..."

You say that, Robert but you never bothered to even try to refute the calculations I presented that show that statement is not true. Remember? From public sources, based on existing technology?

"...Perhaps the easiest, and most basic arguments against them depend on understanding what resolution is..."

Which is something you apparently don't have a clue about, Robert. You seem to know as much about resolution as you do about reflective coatings.

"...You quibbled with a number gisterme - - - but where do you have a problem with this argument?"

Just read what's written above, Robert. I could write much more, but that would be a waste of time, wouldn't it?

almarst-2001 - 11:27am Nov 9, 2001 EST (#10303 of 10657)

"Why would anybody have a problem with using space-based devices to protect the surface of the earth from space-transiting nuclear weapons, particularly if the defensive devices use no nuclear weapons? Nobody has offered a good reason so far."

Because the next obvious step would be to attack the ground below from the space - why wait for those wearpons to start "transiting"?

Because the next obvious step would be to attack the "enemie's" space instalations while protection our's - may be the most importand part of the program.

Because, once the space is officially militarized, who would object against placing the bombs, missiles or other reentering vechicals into orbiting devices, ready to be dropped avoiding the vulnerable boost-stage.

Because, once the concept of unattendend autonomic WMD is accepted, it will spread all over the Earth surface and under the oceans.

Once finished, this "safe" environment will surelly cause a "good night sleep" for all of us;)

gisterme - 06:22pm Nov 9, 2001 EST (#10304 of 10657)

almarst-2001 11/9/01 11:27am

"Because the next obvious step would be to attack the ground below from the space - why wait for those wearpons to start "transiting"?"

Obvious to whom, almarst? Who needs to attack anybody from space? Why would anybody want to destroy sombody else's space assets? Most of those assets are communication satellites. At least here in the US, communication and the understanding that follows is widely thought to be the key to establishing true peace. Even Showalter thinks that, although he sometimes seems more interested in talking just for the sake of talking.

I think you're still tangled up in Cold War paranoia, almarst. If so, I won't blame you too much. Such trauma often takes decades to dissipate. I'll just patiently keep pointing out that Russia, the former republics of the Soviet Union, the rest of Europe and the United States are no longer enemies. I'm confident that sooner or later you'll see the light. :-) You'll probably be less stressed-out too!

almarst-2001 - 11:01pm Nov 9, 2001 EST (#10305 of 10657)

gisterme,

The NORMAL human beings can be expected to behave as you described.

Can we call the US political-military establishement NORMAL?

The use of the "Deplete Uranium Bombs" against the Iraqi civilians in Southern Iraq during the Gulf War - http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraqi_torture.htm

almarst-2001 - 11:27pm Nov 9, 2001 EST (#10306 of 10657)

Worth reading:

http://www.antiwar.com/

(351 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense