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 - 03:15pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11364 of 11370)

While I'm looking, could you comment on what I said in
MD11352 rshow55 2/8/02 1:17pm ... MD11353 rshow55 2/8/02 1:20pm ?

Has your posting changed any of that, except to raise the force of my arguments, with the corrected numbers?

rshow55 - 03:26pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11365 of 11370)

I posted this while you were posting, then deleted it. Right now, it still seems to pertinent, so I'm reposting it.

Gisterme , in view of gisterme 2/8/02 1:25pm , do you still think that ABL has a workable feedback path for adaptive optics focusing? (I know your answer, set out above, but perhaps you should reconsider it?)

A feedback path good enough to get the very good focus (as I remember, about 10 times better than that of space telescope ) needed for the COIL laser assembly -- to permit tactically important damage to the target missile?

I don't want to waste time on this thread, hashing over common ground - but it seems to me that this is an issue of importance.

Do we agree that there is no feedback loop good enough for ABL to work? (It seems to me that we should agree about this.)

Or should we work through the argument in detail?

Can we use references already cited on this thread, as common ground about what adaptive optics is ?

We're making progress, I believe, in the national interest.

rshow55 - 03:59pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11366 of 11370)

I've been trying hard to act in the national interest - subject to my instructions. I've done so under circumstances that have sometimes been awkward, MD10845 rshow55 1/17/02 3:28pm , and if, perhaps, I've been disrespectful, and forceful -- perhaps some people can understand and forgive, considering the difficulty of the circumstances.

A public NYT thread is a conspicuous place to try to communicate certain information. But I have tried to work more discretely, subject to my understanding of what I was supposed to do, and was not able to do so. MD304 rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm

Work I've done, of a mathematical nature, originally at the suggestion of the government, is described informally in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/636 and some context set out in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/637 .

In my opinion, we've made some progress toward getting things straight in ways that all rationally patriotic Americans ought to approve of. I hope we can continue making progress in the next few days as rapidly and smoothly as we have in the last few.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense