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 - 05:52pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11430 of 11476)

This thread, as a matter of structure, can't close arguments. Someone can always make another posting -- and evade.

There is no feedback path between laser and target -- not one that has enough photons, or angular resolution, or time, to be worth anything. gisterme got around that, yesterday, by saying "but we lock on the exhaust plume -- so we don't need a feedback to adjust the mirrors."

But you do need a feedback path -- (one with better resolution than the plume will give you) -- and you need it especially to adjust the lasar, which is subject to thermal stresses, among other problems, and will need adjusting.

I don't ever expect to convince gisterme of Mazza - - that would take good faith on their part, and I've come to have my doubts about that.

But this thread, as arguments accumulate, is making a case for umpires - - and for questions that need to be answered to a valid closure, and can be.

mazza9 - 05:59pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11431 of 11476)
Louis Mazza

Why Umpires? You appear the type who would call for an instant replay if the call didn't go your way. Why Umpires? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the umpires will agree with you and suspend the laws of the universe.

You have the right to voice your concerns and doubts and we've tried to illuminate you, (even though there are FCC warnings about laser illumination being a hazard to your health, AND BALLISTIC MISSILE!!!)AND i SUPPOSE WILL CONTINUE TO UNTIL WE CAN PRESENT THE FINAL EVIDENCE OF THE ABL'S FACILITY.

Gotta go to a Mardi Gras event at church.

Buono fortuna!

LouMazza

gisterme - 06:00pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11432 of 11476)

rshow55 2/10/02 5:44pm

"...As I've said, "the key problem, it seems to me, would be to get representatives of the military, or the contactors, with names,..."

Never head of anybody who didn't have at least one name...

"...and PE tickets at stake,..."

Ahem, sorry to point this out, Robert, but there is no requirement of a PE ticket for most types of engineering tasks. Once again, you reveal you ignorance. A majority of top flight engineers do not bother to maintain a PE license. The only work that a PE license is required for is civil constrution design. Mecahnical Civil and Electrical engineers are required by government to maintain a PE license to perform those public construction design tasks.

"...to participate in clear engineering discussions..."

Discussions with whom, Robert? You? They already do have such discussions with each other. How do you think anything ever gets accomplished? I'm sure you wouldn't have a clue what they're talking about most of the time if you were invited to listen in.

"...of what is possible in terms of the open literature, and what is not."

If we had to rely on "open literature" to limit possibilites in scientific/engineering discussions as to what's possible and what's not, then we'd still be using stone tools.

Get a grip, Robert. Your world view is totally lacking in imagination and shows little connection to reality.

rshow55 - 06:02pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11433 of 11476)

Umpires, because right anwers matter -- and these questions are important, for the welfare of the United States.

If the case were likely to go against me --- you and gisterme wouldn't be fighting the idea of umpires with such passionate intensity, and so much evasion.

We could save the taxpayers a lot of money !

rshow55 - 06:05pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11434 of 11476)

You're exactly wrong, gisterme , when you say:

"If we had to rely on "open literature" to limit possibilites in scientific/engineering discussions as to what's possible and what's not, then we'd still be using stone tools.

What is possible is informed by what has gone before. And on these issues, a lot has gone before -- a lot is well known.

I've never claimed that military research can't advance the state of the art. But how much -- does it take miraculous advances? And how many does it take?

Those are valid questions -- and they're reinforced by the record of this thread.

gisterme - 06:07pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11435 of 11476)

rshow55 2/10/02 5:16pm

"...My little hand held calculater gives the cosine of a milliradian as .9999995 ..."

Good thing your little handheld calculator isn't used to determine the optical performance of lasers, Robert.

It's Amazing that you can pronounce how the laser for ABL can't possibly be good enough, based on your little hand held calculator!

Bwah HA HA hahaha!

rshow55 - 06:13pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11436 of 11476)

You're showing your ignorance, gisterme .

(40 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense