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?

rshow55 - 01:48pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10759 of 10762)

This thread started May 25, 2000 -- and at that time, carried this heading:

" Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?"

Just after posting 711, on Feb 11, 2000, the heading was changed to this one

" 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?

The heading above continued for about 9335 postings about to the time of MD 10046 rshowalter 10/2/01 11:06am at a time when the NYT was under some pressures, from an anthrax attack on the NYT Science offices, and other things. Armel, who is no longer moderator, changed the heading to the present one.

" 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?"

This present heading is a good one. But it does make much of the text on this thread seem "off topic" - when it was written within the topic that existed when it was posted. Nor does it make room for context statements that all the major posters have made, and continue to make on this thread.

Might I suggest something like the following? It combines language from the first heading this thread had and the current one.

" There is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era? Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?"

gisterme - 03:27pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10760 of 10762)

rshowalt 1/7/02 10:04pm

"...Since the 1960's, military designers have been muddling along, "inspired" by commercial artist sketches and their own hype, with stuff that barely worked, barely understood.

They've abandoned calculus as a serious (or at least central) design tool, and assumed that they could "model anything on a computer" even if they didn't understand what they were modelling..."

That's absolute Bullsh!t, Robert. How do you have the gall to make such stupid pronouncements as if they were absolute truth? Don't you care about your own credibility or is it that you still think everybody else is just stupid too? How you have the gall to publish such bunk is beyond me.

Oh, by the way, in case you don't recall, the marvelous design work on the B-52 had the small problem of the tail sections breaking off in early models...until the initial design flaws were corrected. So much for "knowing it all" back then.

As far as use of calculus is concerned, you're once again proving your ignorance, Robert. Just because computers use numerical methods to integrate or differentiate, that doesn't mean it's not calculus. Sheesh. You'd do much better if you stayed away from technical issues, Robert. You're obviously not trained.

Things routinely modelled with great success using computers today, were absolutely impossible to model by any means in 1952. Many of those things weren't even imagined back then.

Are you wanting to go back to the stone age, Robert? If so, I'd suggest you go get some training in a madrassa.

mazza9 - 04:08pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10761 of 10762)
Louis Mazza

Yes a clean, reflective coating would deflect a laser beam if it could maintain its sheen throughout the flight regime. This will not happen. I have yet to see such a clean launch. In fact, the probablities of this defense working is zero and none.

At one time the Soviet Union was pursuing particle beam weapons. These were not lased photons but true atomic particles taht would be accelerated by a massive electrical charge. Here's how it worked. A steel ball many meters in diameter would be vaporized by a small nuclear weapon. The instantaneous charge that would develop due to the loss of the physical shell would create an extremely high electrical potential between to poles of a circuit. The result, an massive "jolt" of electricity which would ionize and then project the atomic particles at the speed of light. Kinda like a lightning bolt. It would hit the target with heating and kinetic energy. Bang!!!

You keep responding to these scientific principals as if they can';t be made to happen but you surmise that a mirror finish on a missile is easily done.???? LouMazza

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense