New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

adiamond1 - 02:19pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2829 of 2836)

I am an engineer who works in the image processing pattern recognition field (e.g. building software to automatically find nasty objects in images). I started 15 years ago at General Dynamics where my task was to find "camouflaged needles" in "camouflaged hay stacks." One basic rule of thumb I learned was that if you can't tell the difference between the decoy and real thing by eye then you aren't going to make a computer program that works. The fact is that millions of years of evolution has made any animal better at this then any computer program. We used to joke that we could field the "top" system by training a dog. The problem was how to disguise feeding the dog in the maintenance manual. It isn't a question of "do we have the will" or "we can do it if we set our minds to it just like we sent a man to the moon" because, as anybody whose done this kind of pattern recognition knows, making decoys is a trivial way to thwart detection even in images of stationary targets let alone ones moving at thousands of miles per hour. It isn't that difficult to build decoy warheads, etc., that at all wavelengths of the EM look like real ones (to any level measurable to sensors far away w/r to ultra fast moving objects). The decoys will follow the same trajectories as the real warheads so there's no additional information that can be obtained from movement (and so detecting decoys from real warheads isn't any easier than it is for stationary decoys). Furthermore, NMD, as I understand it, isn't going to help against cruise missiles. It won't defend against terrorism. The thought of a terrorist with a small, low tech bio-weapon makes me shudder. All in all, this discussion would be amusing if it wasn't for the serious implications of spending that money, the arms race it could create, and what it says about how our gov't makes its decisions on technology (specifically, that its not based on the science, just the politics). If this were technically feasible this would still be an interesting debate. Given that it's not, it's just mind bogglingly stupid.

applez0 - 02:24pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2830 of 2836)

"Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

New and more powerful weapons -- in the ways where military utility means something -- are very close at hand -- with the new vulnerabilities of the internet world. Nuclear weapons have become obsolete -- liabilities, not assets."

a) Even though the US and its allies are getting increasingly good at playing this international chess game of military force application, a big solid club to smash the whole metaphoric chess board is still relatively useful. That is why I would not go so far as to call nuclear weapons "obsolete," they really aren't, yet.

b) You seem to consistently and persistently believe that our nuclear weapons are vulnerable to hacker attack: THEY ARE NOT! All of our launch codes, command & control systems are on independent systems. There is next to no access for a hacker to exploit. All a hacker can manage to do at this point is ruin low-priority orders and pay schedules...which could make the US's military flexibility a bit hamstrung, and if lucky, impact on morale (no pay, and no snow muffs due to SNAFUed supply orders).

c) The point that you allude to, and I agree with, is this: increasingly unconventional and unorthodox attacks are likely ... posing little direct risk to life and livelihood that the military is so well suited to dealing with. NMD/SDI does jack for protecting the US from these sorts of attack...or the more violent unconventional sorts (as McVeigh illustrated so well).

applez0 - 02:27pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2831 of 2836)

"(specifically, that its not based on the science, just the politics)."

It is far, far worse than that. If it were truly based on political decisions, than it would have to accept that NMD presents a horrific strain on our political alliances and the domestic political situation that has grown since the end of the Cold War.

No, IMHO, the decision is based on ignorance and military-industrial calculations alone.

rshowalter - 02:44pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2832 of 2836)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

adiamond1 4/30/01 2:19pm
Great stuff. And on top of the points you mention, are problems of sheer resolution - all through the system. Technically, Star Wars is crazy - - we, still today, have trouble getting our air to air missiles to hit targets -- our best control stuff is far worse what animals can do.

robt517 - 02:50pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2833 of 2836)

HELLO!! Now we know why W made his "bonehead" statements about Taiwan, is antagonizing China, and snubbed South Korea on North Korea talks - to generate yellow bogeymen and increase public fear... and consequently support for SDI BOONDOGGLE. China & N.Korea are only commie states capable of pointing missiles at us. State Dept even said it doesn't HAVE to ACTUALLY be effective, just SEEM to be effective so that prospective enemies will "lose confidence". So in the spirit of leaving no oil baron or military industrialist behind, let's pump out millions for worthless lasers and other arcane equipment. In fact, why not get set designers from Star Wars and other films to really make the junk look good, and SPFX guys from The Matrix and (most apt) Wag the Dog to sell it to us. (Meanwhile, terrorist walks over border with a bomb suitcase.) W is about as big a concern to me as any nuclear disaster. It's been 100 days of worst right wing fears realized.

robertcastle0 - 03:02pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2834 of 2836)

Whatever the problem of our government, domestic or foreign, BuSh and his advisors seem to believe the solution lies in increasing the wealth of the select few at the cost of the lives of the majority. His missile defense project threatens another cold war. The only certain beneficiaries will be the corporations which build the so-called system. Other examples are numerous, eg., permitting excessive CO2 emissions, terminating testing meat in school lunches, reducing limitations of permissible amounts of arsenic in drinking water.

Is this conservative compassion?

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense