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 - 06:32pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11516 of 11552)

gisterme those are good postings.

You don't seem to be disputing the "questions" -- the "tests" of MD11502 rshow55 2/12/02 11:17am . . and I'm glad we agree on that much. What you do say is "We're already passing the tests."

That's certainly an important point, but you have to ask "what tests?"

For example, to "hit a bullet with a bullet" as the mid-course interception system has to do, i under any conditions is impressive. But how does what was tested -- what has been shown -- compare with what has to be shown? I've read the Coyle Report before, and I've looked at it again in the last couple of hours.

Compared to what the midcourse interception system has to do to be a effective defense weapon , much less than needs to be shown has been shown. Far less. And the test have applied to a system that, as a practical matter, has no countermeasures (the "decoy balloon" is so different from the target that it might as well be called a target identification aid.)

A long list of technical questions - critical to operational success of the program as a weapons system are contained in the subject matter of the Coyle Report.

Program results to date may indicate not how much progress has actually been made -- but how hard the job realistically is -- and how far fetched the idea of "getting it all together" as a tactically effective weapons system is.

The mid-course interception system appears to be easy to defeat with very simple countermeasures, some described in detail, on the basis of physics that hasn't been contested, on this thread.

rshow55 - 06:34pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11517 of 11552)

The Ikonos satellite pictures you posted are very interesting, and well worth looking at. They give a sense of what the state of the art in surveillance can do.

Those pictures offer good evidence on a point I can't remember contesting:

It is within the state of the art to "see" a flaming 20 meter ICBM during boost phase."

How about hitting it, in a sense that can hurt it, with real systems available or in prospect?

That is nothing like so "easy to see."

How about doing so when there are easy countermeasures employed?

rshow55 - 06:36pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11518 of 11552)

The questions of MD11502 rshow55 2/12/02 11:17am are question I think we agree on that. But they apply to detailed specific circumstances. I'm adding language to deal with some of those circumstances.

For each weapons system:

Can it see the target under the circumstances that actually matter in detail?

Can it hit the target under the circumstances that actually matter in detail?

Can it hit the target hard enough to kill it under the circumstances that actually matter in detail?

These questions apply for "best possible test conditions" (and, in the cases gisterme has cited, tests of subassemblies of the weapons system) but apply also to tactical conditions, including conditions with the existence of particular, defined countermeasures.

Now, there's no quesition that the contractors may have made technical advances over the open literature state-of-the art. But it will be possible to ask

" How hard is it for the weapons system to do the things it has to to see, hit, and hurt the targets that count , judging from what can be done in the open literature?"

Specific questions can be asked about these things. These questions are worth asking if they have a definite bearing on the questions of seeing, hitting, and hurting.

To answer these questions effectively and systematically is beyond what this thread can do -- but we're moving towards a point where getting these questions answered could be done -- and we've made some progress today -- because there's been some movement in the direction of agreement about what the right questions are.

rshow55 - 08:39pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11519 of 11552)

MD11096 rshow55 1/27/02 5:06pm

the truth should be OUR most important weapon.

It could be. And a very cost effective one.

(33 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense