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?

rshowalter - 05:38pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3049 of 3070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Radar engineering, for instance, has been going on for a long time. And there were very good, motivated people in it, very early. Order of magnitude resolution breakthroughs, dealing with targets built to be hard to measure, are going to be hard to come by. The same goes with a lot of optical positioning stuff. Fancy optics has been going on for a long time.

gisterme - 05:40pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3050 of 3070)

lunarchick, the internet itself is a perfect example of US military research spending diffusing throughout the world. So are the PCs we use. So are microwave ovens. So are the computers that permeate new vehicles. So are lots of other things we enjoy but mostly take for granted.

rshowalter - 05:44pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3051 of 3070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Nobody has to doubt the fact that good things happen sometimes. But you ought to go to someplace with a good overview -- say the U.S. Patent Office (one of my favorite places) and get a sense of how often hopes are dashed.

Usually, things are more complicated than people know when they start, things go wrong, and there are disappointments. That's the human condition. And, or course, people learn from their successes. They learn from their failures, too.

And competent engineers -- all of them competent enough for licensure know that everything is not possible.

There are plenty of technical impossibilities. Missile Defense, on the basis of any proposal I've ever heard about, has clearly been in that category. The needed resolution, at a number of stages, even for "easy" interceptions, just hasn't been there.

lunarchick - 05:46pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3052 of 3070)
lunarchick@www.com

A problem : people just accept the proposal of Bwsh at face value without having the skills to evaluate it.

This happens with juries also. Take the dingo-baby case Merril did the film. Here supposed scientific evidence was put before the jury .. who didn't have the skills to evaluate it. It was suggested that scientific evidence be put before, and evaluated by, a scientific 'jury' .. and then their comments and findings be given to lay people.

The Shield is a bit like this .. people say .. 'Oh yeah - sounds okay' but are not given the real information ... is this or that actually possible, feasible or not.

If you were asked to put down a deposit on a 'gaget' and told that it was just an 'idea' .. then suckers excepted no one would.

Looking at the Bwsh concept the money is coming from suckers (taxpayers USA) who have not evaluated the scheme, have few concrete concepts as to what it is, how it would work etc..

Politicians have a reasonable wage and excellent pensions - often voting on their own pay increases - they have 'security'.

People with a guaranteed future may not think too clearly with regards as to how they 'spend' or 'give away - if no auditing' ... a country's money.

Are there any scientific folks on a discussion jury setting out to evaluate this project and passing their findings on to the public .. has such a jury been funded by politicians and asked to report back ?

rshowalter - 05:47pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3053 of 3070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And missile defense, to be any good, has to handle the hardest interceptions, under the noisiest conditions, that an adversary can arrange.

As the brits would say"

" It is just not on."

lunarchick - 05:50pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3054 of 3070)
lunarchick@www.com

'perpetual motion machine' the Aussies are there mate : http://www.linearenergy.com.au/

lunarchick - 05:53pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3055 of 3070)
lunarchick@www.com

The spin offs from space research evolved via a purposeful environmental challenge and would bring returns to the USA.

The only spin-off from the Sheild will be a 'false sense of security' so say posters above.

rshowalter - 05:55pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3056 of 3070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

U.S. Democrats Criticize Bush Missile Defense Plan by REUTERS Filed at 4:08 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/world/bush-arms-democrats.html

ends

" House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said, ``If the proposal actually comes before the House, either in the budget or in the defense bill, we'll do everything we can to raise the right questions.''

That would be good. Right answers matter here.

lunarchick - 05:57pm May 2, 2001 EST (#3057 of 3070)
lunarchick@www.com

"If it's not on, it's not on" did become a catch phrase in a health awareness campaigne!

(13 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense