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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 07:04pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10928 of 10946)

gisterme:

"Robert, if you can develop a decal like you imagine for under $100K, then I'd say it's your patriotic duty to do so to save the rest of us tax payers a lot of money on BMD laser system developoment. Why not make a proposal to the Air Force rather than just whining about it here? I'll bet I can guess why...

So, we're agreed that if such a reflective decal can be built, and build in a cost effective manner, it will "save the rest of us tax payers a lot of money on BMD laser system developoment" ?

Would that mean that if I supplied such a decal, with testing, pieces of it could be passed around relevant committees, military ones, and in the House and Senate, - - and the laser development programs would be abandoned?

Would that mean that, once pieces were given, for instance, to representatives of the 100+ countries who attended the meeting in Moscow on weaponization of space, there would be real determination of what could be done with space weapons ?

Would you agree with that?

Do you think the Air Force would?

If they did, my guess is that the decals could be supplied and tested, at no cost to the government.

What do you say, gisterme ?

There are, of course, a lot of other reasons why the laser weapons, and other MD weapons, are very bad bets, and a waste of taxpayer money - - but the reflective decal is a particularly clear example.

gisterme - 07:10pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10929 of 10946)

rshow55 1/21/02 7:01pm

"...Would you agree with that?..."

What possible difference could it make whether or not I agree with that or not, Robert? If it's so easy, just go ahead and do it!

"...Do you think the Air Force would?

If they did, my guess is that the decals could be supplied and tested, at no cost to the government..."

When you get your decals done, Robert, it won't matter what the AF thinks either. Why not just go ahead and put a little egg on their faces if it's so easy? Wouldn't you enjoy that?

"...What do you say, gisterme?"

I'm not stopping you from entering the magic decal business, Robert. However, based on my own limited experience there's one thing I have learned... talk is cheap.

rshow55 - 07:13pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10930 of 10946)

talk has its costs, as well, but data matters a great deal.

So you're not disagreeing, so far - - high reflectance decals, if they are cheap, invalidate the laser based parts of MD.

Do you disagree with that?

gisterme - 07:14pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10931 of 10946)

lchic 1/19/02 3:22am

"There's reading

And reading with meaning

With adding, deducting

Between-in"

You forgot reading for conspiracy theorizing, lunarchick. That one should be important to you.

rshow55 - 07:15pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10932 of 10946)

again: rshow55 1/21/02 7:13pm

gisterme - 07:20pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10933 of 10946)

"...talk has its costs, as well, but data matters a great deal..."

Talk seems to be what you have plenty of, Robert; just no data.

To me it seems as likely that missiles could be protected from lasers by remote viewers as by your imaginary unobtanium decals.

As I said before. Make the decals then ask. My opinon would then be entirely irrelevant.

However if I agreed with you in the hypothetical case of the imaginary decal, I could equally well imagine a hypothetical laser that could overwhem any decal no matter how many nines were involved in it's reflectivity index. So to answer your question directly, NO I DON'T AGREE!

gisterme - 07:26pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10934 of 10946)

rshow55 1/19/02 3:34pm

"..."search pages" on this MD thread offer a sense of how much participation there has been..."

Yeah, I'd guess 90% by just four or five people to date. Probably about 80% by you alone, Robert.

rshow55 - 07:28pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10935 of 10946)

Because of who you are, and the amount of government effort you've expended, your opinion, and the things you say and have said, aren't irrelevant.

But the last posting is interesting, nonetheless.

gisterme:

"I could equally well imagine a hypothetical laser that could overwhem any decal no matter how many nines were involved in it's reflectivity index."

I wonder how many responsible people could imagine that sort of thing? Gisterme, I'm amazed, given your illustrious background, at the anti-intellectual stance you're taking.

rshowalt - 07:37pm Jan 21, 2002 EST (#10936 of 10946)

md8503 rshowalter 9/5/01 3:18pm

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense