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 - 07:26pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11375 of 11392)

rshow55 2/8/02 6:27pm

"...but the basic question above still seems to me to be a crucial one -- sufficient to rule out ABL..."

Your AO question has now been dealt with explicity, Robert. Do you understand now? AO would seem key to taking the ABL from "just workable" at a couple of hundred miles range to "really good" at that range for the reasons explained in my two previous posts.

gisterme 2/8/02 6:02pm

gisterme 2/8/02 7:05pm

You should really re-evaluate your position WRT the feasibily of the ABL based on facts rather than emotions. If your agenda can't be achieved and your goals can't be reached without ignoring facts, then they definately can't be achieved by ignoring facts.

You should consider why, in light of the facts your goals and agendas are unacheivable and adjust them accordingly until you have some that are acheivable based on the reality of facts. Doing so would be application of intellegent feedback to your own situation. Learning new things and adjusting accordingly is an honorable thing to do. Denying the truth for the sake of ego or just plain stubbornness is not.

rshow55 - 07:36pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11376 of 11392)

gisterme 2/8/02 7:26pm seems to me to be just babble, gisterme

With the stakes as they are, umpires may be necessary. I think things are converging into a configuration where we can get them, but have some hope, based on some of the interactions today, that responsible people in the administration may do the right thing. The need for umpires expressed in MD11326 rshow55 2/6/02 9:18pm seems very clear to me, but perhaps some of the rest of it is too harsh.

Gisterme , it is in the national interest to get right answers on this matter, and gisterme 2/8/02 7:26pm just isn't responsive.

Could you be getting tired? We've both worked hard today. Might it be time to take a break, and resume later?

rshow55 - 07:48pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11377 of 11392)

MD11371 gisterme 2/8/02 7:05pm is an interesting post, and I'd like to deal with it carefully, since it uses "feedback" and makes analogies to "feedback" in ways that I'd like to be very clear about. I'll feel better doing that in the morning.

I feel I've done a good job, so far today. What's more, I think gisterme has, too.

I don't want to spoil my part, by keeping on after I've gotten tired enough that I feel less confident of my performance.

Please pardon me, gisterme , but I'm out.

gisterme - 07:57pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11378 of 11392)

"...With the stakes as they are, umpires may be necessary..."

Ahhh, Robert, Robert. What would those umpires do???? And who would umpire the umpires? Adding the confusion of artificial complexity to any discussion will not change the truth or the facts. If you won't accept verifiable facts without umpires, why would you accept them with umpires?

That you admit things sound like "babble" to you only goes to show that your complexity-limit is exceeded already. How would adding complexity help that? And what will you say when the umpires say "stick to the facts"? "It sounds like babble to me?" Get a grip, Robert.

gisterme - 08:05pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11379 of 11392)

rshow55 2/8/02 7:24pm

"...The other issue is that reflection is not the same at all wavelengths. But the COIL laser is a specific wavelength - - and it is the laser source on ABL..."

Yep. But we've already established that even with only 2% reflectivity at the COIL's wavelength, at 1000 km range, through the thin upper atmosphere, a focused beam could more than achieve the 1 kW/cm^2 delivered power we've speculated would be enough to get the job done. That's if the missile is covered with a reflective material that reflects at just the right wavelength.

To the best of my knowledge there aren't any ICBMs like that in the world today. We or the Russians who might have the capability to develop such technology within a reasonable amount of time would have little motivation to do so since both we and they are trying to get rid of our ICBMS.

Terrorists or places like Iraq, Iran or N. Korea who are likely to actually try to use ballistic missiles when they get them (or provide them to proxies who will) don't know how to develop such technlogy any time soon and can't afford to learn. I wish they would waste their resources trying to do that because it wouldn't work anyway!

(13 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense