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.

lchic - 03:52am Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11163 of 11168)

.

rshow55 - 05:43am Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11164 of 11168)

Distrust is key - - - something to be assumed - - - and for stabilty, we need to understand that. Lchic's reference the the International Crisis Group in 11163 is a very good one.

I'm going to get a little more sleep before answering - - and then do so, in a way in which I hope will be clear without clicking references to things already said. But with some references to things said before on this thread, as well.

The technical issue has to do with stability - - the distinction between "things that explode" and "things do not explode."

Military folks understand a lot about "escalatory sequences" -- and how to deal with them. Not always how to avoid them. Some technical issues are described, in a poetic but clear form, in Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

Issues of dynamic stability and instability of guidance systems, much discussed in Analysis of Nonlinear Control Systems by D.Graham and Duane McRuer copywright 1961 -- Dover ed, 1971 are closely related to the issues of stability and and instability considered in Chain Breakers.

These issues, which I've worried about for a long time, and was assigned to worry about, are centrally related to the question "Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?"

Back in a while.

lchic - 08:46am Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11165 of 11168)

I'm going to get a little more sleep before answering - - and then do so, in a way in which I hope will be clear without clicking references to things already said. But with some references to things said before on this thread, as well.
Go steady on the kryptonite!

rshow55 - 12:22pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11166 of 11168)

I'm moving slowly, carefully with respect to gisterme's MD11163 and my MD 11164 .

While I'm working on that, I wonder if anyone has comments on the session of yesterday, especially from MD11146 to MD11155, and particularly including gisterme's much appreciated reference to reflective films, MD11149 gisterme 1/31/02 4:15pm We've been discussing the possibility of polymeric reflective decals on this thread for six months, and talked of the long available gold reflectors since MD10992 rshow55 1/23/02 5:15pm

It seems to me that the discussion casts serious doubt on the viability of the entire MD program, as presently set out. Countermeasures that can defeat the weapons in the program may be a million times cheaper to build than the MD systems themselves.

A question I have is this. With the financial stakes as they are, under what conditions can a technical judgement that seems to go against contractor interest be, to use gisterme's word , " convincing?" That is, convincing in a way that effects action.

The stakes under discussion are high, and part of that involves large flows of money. Plan to Stop Missile Threat Could Cost $238 Billion by JAMES DAO

mazza9 - 12:54pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11167 of 11168)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

There are no missile defenses at the present time. Remember Dr. Strangelove? Should a 10 cent capacitor short and a SS-22 is launched towards the US we are SOL! That 10 cent component causes a $10 Trillion OOPS!!! "That's the fact Jack", (Bill Murray - Stripes)

In the meantime, the ABL is moving toward operational status, (maybe three years).

The Axis of Terror wouldn't need an excuse. They have the maniac capacity to launch on purpose.

Yes the stakes are high, an you seem to weigh in on the side of the thugs.

Should anything happen at the Super Bowl and New Orleans is smoked, my response would be simple....

1. Tell the Russians and Chinese to sit on their hands.

2. Tell everyone else to put down their weapons or and spread them!

LouMazza

gisterme - 06:04pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11168 of 11168)

rshow55 2/1/02 12:22pm

"...We've been discussing the possibility of polymeric reflective decals on this thread for six months, and talked of the long available gold reflectors since MD10992..."

The fact that you insist on ignoring, Robert is that neither the layered polymer nor gold leaf would be the least bit effective at defending against high-enery lasers. They'd work great against flashlights. But those aren't just my "feelings" or my opinion. I gave you verifiable, provable, checkable reasons why that is the case. YOU CAN CHECK ROBERT! But you don't because you're apparently not really interested in the truth. You are interested in propagating your smoke screen. You're the one evading facts here, Robert, not any of the rest of us. You want checkable information that you don't have to check yourself. You are clearly information mining, but only digging for things that are not checkable. When things become checkable your entire structure of arguements, like a house of cards, immediately collapses into its landscape of eggs and mirrors.

"...It seems to me that the discussion casts serious doubt on the viability of the entire MD program, as presently set out..."

It only seems that way to you, Robert, because you insist on keeping your head in the sand about the checkable truth, as noted above. Thanks for the perfect and timely example of exactly what I mean.

It seems that are not really thinking of the reflecive materials to reflect away the light of laser beams, Robert. You are attempting to use them to reflect away the light of truth. I'll tell you, Robert, those reflectors are even less effective at that than they are at deflecting laser beams.

Everybody sees the ostrich except the ostrich I suppose...

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense