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.

gisterme - 12:36am Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11199 of 11209)

rshow55 2/1/02 9:42pm

"...Now how small is the optical dispersion over a hundred miles?"

The fallacy of your arguement is the assumption is that the beam is perfectly parallel or that it diverges. Using adaptive optics of the type described for the ABL means that the beam can be focused to converge to a point at any arbitrary distance. That's why they'd need to know the exact range to the target. So the beam that starts out 24" in diameter can be focused to a much smaller point at the target. That minimizes the real energy handling performance requirements of the optics and maximizes the per square unit energy delivered to the target. Ever fry ants with a magnifying glass when you were a kid? That's a flat waveface bent into a convergent beam. You're still thinking 1970s technology, Robert; but guess what? It's not 1970!

"...A factor of 50 reduction of intensity, maybe, with pretty good optics, and pretty low absorbtion?..."

Absorbtion and dispersion are a true attenuating factors but "pretty good adaptive optics" more than compensate for that in energy delivered to the target. Remember, the ABL is designed to operate above 40,000 feet where the air is thin and relatively calm. Less air means less absorption and dispersion. But even if you lost 50% of the transmitted energy through a particular distance of atmosphere, that wouldn't mean you have less energy per unit squared at the target. If the beam is focused to say a 10cm diameter at the target, and you've lost half the transmitted energy due to absorption, you've still got 1 magawatt applied to an area of about 79 cm^2. That's 12.7 kW/cm^2 for 100% absorption, 254 W/cm^2 for 2% absorption and 25.4 W/cm^2 for .2% absorption. Oh, by the way, there's no reason that the beam couldn't be focused into an even smaller area, say about the size of your fingernail. I'm sure you won't be interested in doing the calcs for that. Checking the truth of that would no doubt be too hard on your ego.

"...Not to mention problems with aiming, which are far from trivial..."

Far from trivial? Yes. Impossible given today's technology? Not at all. Certainly much easier than making tunable high-energy reflective decals.

"...The ABL is easy to counter with reflective coatings."

A falsehood.

"...And a reflective coating with 99.9% reflection is not hard to build..."

Another flasehood. The best we've seen evidence presented for is 98% reflectivity for a very narrow spectral band at very low energy levels.

"...Mazza, you're a fraud."

Showalter, you've got your foot in your mouth...again, not to mention the egg on your face. You're the least qualified of any who post on this forum to call another a fraud.

gisterme - 01:29am Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11200 of 11209)

robertread1 1/31/02 10:09am

"...Is MD not a first strike weapon, like the stealth bomber is?..."

Of course not. Ballistic missile interceptors are not designed to hit earthly targets. There's already too much stuff in the world to do just that. If there weren't we wouldn't need a ballistic missile defense.

"Why do MD supporters think this will not be de-stabilising?"

An effective missile defense will add stability because;

1. It threatens no one who doesn't intend to launch a missile attack.

2. It reduces the probability of damage from an accidental launch (may heaven forbid).

3. It reduces or eliminates the damage that would be caused by a few missiles falling into the "wrong hands".

4. It provides global protection...not just for the US but potentially for Europe, Russia and other places as well.

5. It gives at least some confidence that we'll be okay in reducing the number of our own offensive nuclear weapons. Those are the real first strike hammers.

Remember that the BMD effort is of quite a limited scope. It is designed to knock down an attack comprised of a dozen or less missiles. The system proposed would be quickly overwhelmed by a large-scale attack such as Russia is capable of; but Russia is no longer a threat...she's a friend.

gisterme - 01:41am Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11201 of 11209)

rshow55 2/1/02 5:43am

"...Distrust is key - - - something to be assumed - - - and for stabilty, we need to understand that..."

gisterme 2/1/02 1:01am

You've avioded the question you're pretending to answer, Robert, so I'll ask again. Distrust of whom? Friends?

friend (from WWWebster)

Pronunciation: 'frend

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English frend, from Old English frEond; akin to Old High German friunt friend, Old English frEon to love, frEo free Date: before 12th century

1 a : one attached to another by affection or esteem 1 b: ACQUAINTANCE

2 a : one that is not hostile b : one that is of the same nation, party, or group

3 : one that favors or promotes something (as a charity)

4 : a favored companion

5 capitalized : a member of a Christian sect that stresses Inner Light, rejects sacraments and an ordained ministry, and opposes war -- called also Quaker

Definitions 1a and 4 are the ones that fit the context of "friend" that I mean here.

If your philosophy is that distrust of friends is to be assumed, then I'd venture to guess that you don't have many close friends. Given that idea, no friends at all would be the most stable possible condition. What a stalinesque concept, Robert.

Isn't a principal characteristic of friendship trust??? And isn't a principal characteristic of enmity distrust? Given those facts, the building of trust is what is necessary to convert enemies to friends. Distrust nourishes the roots of hatred.

lchic - 03:21am Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11202 of 11209)

Bush Budget Links Dollars to Deeds With New Ratings / RICHARD W. STEVENSON
President Bush's proposed budget plan will for the first time formally assess the performance of government agencies and link their financing to the grades they receive.
• Graphic: Rating Government's Performance

SEE DEFENCE - acknowledged problems in all areas listed!

lchic - 03:24am Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11203 of 11209)

see
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/politics/03BUDG.html

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense