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?

guy_catelli - 08:41pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10819 of 10834)
the trick of Mensa

rshowalter - 10:11pm Oct 24, 2000 GMT (#7 of 249)

Nuclear war has bothered me because of personal experience. As a bookish boy with big muscles and a forceful disposition, I found that I had to fight or defer, found that I fought pretty well, and learned something about fighting, both with individuals and with groups. When I went to college, I got interested in some matters of applied mathematics which had military significance, where it was felt that, if the Russians solved a certain class of control problems before we did, we might find ourselves, without warning, stripped of the capacity to fly planes that could survive air-to-air missile attack. That is to say, we'd find ourselves without an air force, and conceivably losers in a war with the very terrible Soviet Union. That made the problem interesting to me, and I've kept at it, and made some progress on this class of problems, since.

There was a difficulty. Here was an instability. Change a simple mathematical circumstance, or perceptions of it, and perceptions of military risk shifted radically. If we could lie to the Russians, and say we'd cracked the problem, we might scare the hell out of them, at trivial cost. Just a little theatrics in the service of bluff. Scaring the other side, with bluffs (lies) is standard military practice. I found myself asked to get involved in what I took to be serous Russian scaring. I refused to go along, after talking to some people on the other side, because of my old fighting experience. It was my judgement, right or wrong, that they Russians were already plenty scared enough, and if scared much more, they might lose control, and fight without wanting to. I may have made a big mistake.

But I did become convinced that the United States was carrying on a very careful, calibrated, but terrible tactic.

We were maintaining the Russians at a level of sufficient fear that they spent much more than they could afford, in money and manpower, on their military. The feeling was that, if we kept at this, for many years, the Soviet system would become degenerate, and collapse of its own weight. I believe that this is what in fact happened.

I'd been appalled at the tactic (as I understood it) because I didn't think the controls were good enough, and feared unintended, world destroying war might result.

But when the Soviet Union fell, my guess was that the tactic had been maintained, and controls had been good enough, and the plan had worked. Nuclear weapons, used as terror weapons, had defeated the Soviet Union, yet never been actually fired.

let me get this straight. (apparently) rshow55 developed *his own* algorithm for measuring: 1. how scared the soviets were; 2. how scared they needed to be; 3. the marginal contribution to their fear of the no-cost, risk-free, harmless course of action by our side.

he then sought the advice of our enemy; and, finding his views and our enemy's views were in concert (how surprising!), he refused to cooperate with our side.

Robert, this analysis is based upon *your own* version of the case. i wonder how a less charitable witness (than yourself) to the facts you relate would have described them.

rshow55 - 08:42pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10820 of 10834)

Umpires have their uses.

MD10798 rshow55 1/16/02 7:31am ... MD10799 rshow55 1/16/02 7:38am
MD10800 rshow55 1/16/02 7:51am

Sometimes, without them, you can't get to closure. The stakes, in national security, warrant right answers here. Honest accounting would be a very good idea.

gisterme - 08:49pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10821 of 10834)

"...Especially in the real MD case, where accuracy of knowledge is limited enough that homing on the basis of feedback is needed to actually hit the target..."

Of course feedback is needed, Robert. That comes from tracking systems. That's why the fancy radars are needed. Consider your own case, Robert...could you find your way to the tav for a beer without using feedback? You use it all the time just like everybody else. Where's the beef with that?

rshow55 - 08:57pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10822 of 10834)

No beef about things needing feedback. Question is - how well is it used?

The feedback needs good enough, and used well enough, to hit the target.

gisterme - 08:59pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10823 of 10834)

"...But I'd ask -- does gisterme believe in accounting -- responsible accounting?..."

Of course.

"...How about some decent technical accounting?..."

That will never happen by leaping blindly into your fog-bound morass, Robert.

Good accounting is done by trained accountants whose business it is to do the accounting. Good technical accounting would necessarily be done by trained accountants who also have good technical training and whose business it is to do the accounting.

I believe you're disqualified on all three points, Robert.

gisterme - 09:04pm Jan 16, 2002 EST (#10824 of 10834)

rshow55 1/16/02 7:31am

"...Fraud, deception, self deception, and endless insistence on technically false positions does not strengthen the United States. It weakens it..."

Good thing the United States isn't taking any positions like that, Robert.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense