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?

rshowalt - 03:38pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10677 of 10703)

"We've had some fairly extensive discussion about it...you made the assertion of "can't be done", I presented some calculations showing that it could, backed up by links showing public domain performance specificaions of existing technology that could be integrated to accomplish that (basies for the calculations). You responded again with the typical Showalter "can't be done" assertion."

I'll find the references you refer to - - but reference numbers would be appreciated - just to make sure we're talking about the same things. I can't recall any fact you sighted that indicated that "it could be done" that I didn't respond to - - though there may be some.

Perhaps I misremember. People do that. But perhaps YOU misremember.

That's a good reason to site references. I'll be searching everything you wrote on missile defense, and rereading it with care.

You ask some good questions above . . . let me respond.

rshowalt - 03:41pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10678 of 10703)

While I'm doing so, I'd like to repeat the question:

"Do you contest that reflective coatings (above reflectivities, say, of 95%) are easy to put on missiles warheads, and related components?

Of course, that doesn't invalidate the current test program. But it does have much to do with the Russian's strategic concerns, and much to do with the militarization of space -- which is an important issue.

It is a simple question.

rshowalt - 04:06pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10679 of 10703)

Not a rhetorical question.

Surely you've seen decals and other thin sheet material that is reflective (on license plates or windows, for instance).

You've seen printed material with "rainbow" effects and "holographic" effects? - (some software comes with this, to make counterfeiting a little more difficult.) The rainbow effects come from thin layers with differential indices of refraction -- just what's needed for reflective coatings keyed to a particular wavelength. Standard stuff.

You seem implicitly, to be agreeing that "if reflective coatings were easy to apply to missile and warhead surfaces, that would invalidate the lasar MD programs." Is that right?

rshowalt - 04:25pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10680 of 10703)

Gisterme , you make some points below where we have some agreement. Perhaps we're approaching some common ground.

I feel I did somewhat better in responding to your calculations than

"making a "can't be done" assertion."

But I did not go as far as I would have liked in "going beyond that" . . . addressing the facts that were given.

You wrote:

"That may seem like a complete response to you, but not to me or anybody else who has any sense at all." (emphasis added.)

There are degrees of completeness in responses. To get to "provable in a court of law" certainty, there need to be some conventions. And engagement , subject to rules (usually including some sort of umpiring) between people taking different positions.

We've discussed some ways of getting that sort of thing before on this thread, and I'll go back and get the references. But perhaps you remember some of the discussion.

Are we approaching a point where that might be done? This thread would not be the place for all of it.

If I knew some Congressional staffers or other responsible parties were watching, on the record, and if there were real people, with real names and real credentials, on both sides, a fair number of key questions might be answered pretty quickly.

One question would be about reflective decals. For that one, it might be easiest to go ahead and build the reflective decals. Given a "for the record" forum, there might be ways to get that done.

rshow55 - 07:37pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10681 of 10703)

g: I said something in MD7096 rshowalter 7/16/01 5:00pm . . . . . . that you responded to, with 6 links in MD7107 gisterme 7/16/01 8:24pm

I responded, with arguments and links to what was specifically involved in your MD7107 in MD7139 rshowalter 7/17/01 4:24pm .. MD7140 rshowalter 7/17/01 4:25pm

MD7141 rshowalter 7/17/01 4:26pm

I'd hoped at the time that you'd respond to those links. Perhaps you can do so now. The issues involved are technical, and simple. There are "show stoppers" on the lasar weapons program.

(22 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense