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?

ghstwrtrx2 - 08:50am Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4655 of 4673)
There are two kinds of Christians. Those that accept their faith as a gift, and those who wield it as a weapon.

I have read that antiballistic missiles are akin to trying to hit a BB, with another BB from a mile away.

possumdag - 11:28am Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4656 of 4673)
Possumdag@excite.com

A comedy re President Bwsh played on Australian TV tonight ....
we didn't get Clinton Comedies ..
although the Clintons hinted that the American Right kept them in the Courthouse trying to pin the tail on dead donkeys for many years .. !

The British leader -
Tony Blair -
is very much the man we see -
he seems to be.
He's a man working for incremental improvement
to shape up the UK,
the economy is buzzing ..
and social needs were also on the minds of voters.
In the UK there's a head of state - QEII .. who doesn't interfere in Politics.

The American Leader -
the current one -
seems a bit of a damp squib -
a dud.
America has a huge population.
How does a dud get into power?
The guy seems to be only
interested in the
Oil and armaments issues! Although rich, rich, rich,
he lacked the curiosity to do normal things
such a stravel and explore the world -
he didn't prepare himself for Presidency.
How is it that the American Constitution
bestows so much power upon ONE man -
who may not be the RIGHT man ?

dirac_10 - 11:47am Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4657 of 4673)

ghstwrtrx2 - 08:50am Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4655 of 4656)

I have read that antiballistic missiles are akin to trying to hit a BB, with another BB from a mile away.

Then you heard wrong. In the first place, we ain't shooting BB's. It's generally a laser or missle. In the missle case, it's more like hitting a BB with a BB from an inch away. And the laser is speed of light.

We can shoot down jets and rockets from over 10 km away right now with lasers. The big lasers that do it have never missed.

Heck, we even sell them to foreign governments.

You didn't know that?

smartalix - 12:08pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4658 of 4673)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

BS, Dirac.

We have yet to display consistent intercept with a missile under any circumstances. Even the antiquated Scud managed to get past the Patriot system (akin to the Aegis system which is also presented as a missile-intercept system) consistently enough to demonstrate the insanity of relying on such a system to protect against nuclear attack. Even in the cases where intercept occurred, the warhead was not destroyed.

Laser systems are more consistent in intercept, but are too reliant, even with adaptive optics, on weather conditions. Also, if the warhead is properly protected (with ablative armor, say) the only thing a laser can accomplish is some energy transfer resulting in the (still functioning) warhead reaching the earth (albeit off-target, but we're talking about a nuke here.)

I am for continued research, but to deploy a faulty system, especially if done unilaterally, is destabilizing and counterproductive to peace.

dirac_10 - 12:50pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4659 of 4673)

smartalix - 12:08pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4658 of 4658)

BS, Dirac.

Actually P.A.M. but whatever.

We have yet to display consistent intercept with a missile under any circumstances.

Get a clue. The lasers have never ever missed. Need a link?

Even the antiquated Scud managed to get past the Patriot system (akin to the Aegis system which is also presented as a missile-intercept system)

Entertain the idea that technology has improved in the last 10 years. If not, I have a nice selection of 1990 computers you might be interested in.

consistently enough to demonstrate the insanity of relying on such a system to protect against nuclear attack.

The insanity is to have nothing to protect us. That's rather clear.

Even in the cases where intercept occurred, the warhead was not destroyed.

The existing lasers, if they can line of sight hit the booster, destroy it without fail. The warhead lands on those that launched it. Boosters are sitting ducks for missles too. Anything ballistic is a sitting duck, but warheads are tougher than rockets.

Laser systems are more consistent in intercept, but are too reliant, even with adaptive optics, on weather conditions.

Consistant? They have never missed. They're batting a thousand. And weather conditions are pretty peaceful above the clouds. Adapative optics seems to work pretty well.

Now, the Golden Fleece, being to be able to use massively powerful, cheap, ground based lasers depends on the weather, but there are those that claim that 5 of them in correctly placed locations will always have one of them with a clear shot.

Granted that lasers are more suited to blowing up boosters than warheads, but eventually they will be able to do that too.

They are well over a megawatt right now. That's a lot already.

Also, if the warhead is properly protected (with ablative armor, say) the only thing a laser can accomplish is some energy transfer

Somewhere around 100 megawatts, for a few seconds and the warhead vaporizes. We're not there yet, gonna have to go for the boosters for a while, but keep a good thought. Manhattan project money would do it in about the same amount of time.

resulting in the (still functioning) warhead reaching the earth (albeit off-target, but we're talking about a nuke here.)

Boost phase puts the warhead on the bad guys. And disabling a warhead 50 km away is better than nothing. The N. Koreans won't know the precise range and will have to risk a dud, or blow it up much further out.

I am for continued research, but to deploy a faulty system,

It's not "faulty" any more than an aircraft carrier. And it's a very small part of the defense budget. A real value at any price to stop Saddam from the easy option of destroying us.

especially if done unilaterally, is destabilizing and counterproductive to peace.

Oh sure, one minute it won't work against the stinking stupid N. Koreans, and the next you tell us that mighty Russia would be worried. Make up your mind, can't have it both ways.

Having a growing host of ruthless thug dictators (or kings like in N. Korea) have the ability to destroy us is what is destabilizing and counterproductive to peace. Russia can totally destroy us now. Including an accidental missle launch. What's the difference? They, at least have a track record of sanity about it.

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense