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?

dirac_10 - 09:04pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5722 of 5746)

my point was .. what happens if the split occurs just prior to that time?

Dosen't reach escape velocity?

The booster must burn for about 170 miles at an approx. speed of mach 4.

Which is, of course, enough time to bounce the info back to the US before the local laser or Aegis destroyer shoots it down.

And this is way beyond any problems with the atmosphere or weather.

possumdag - 09:06pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5723 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

If the system were established .. would the war heads be travelling on the Atlantic or Pacfic route or over the Poles ... Or taking the scenic route ..

Be pretty scary for international aviation travellers who could get Zapped by mistake .. friendly-fire-zapped ... I think the Sheild concept could be scary ... especially if run by the incompetent operator.

possumdag - 09:08pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5724 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

.. that's coming back to the point re USA not having the competence to 'plan' an electricity supply ... a much simpler task ..

dirac_10 - 09:12pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5725 of 5746)

http://www.fas.org/rlg/20.htm

This is the best source on the physics I have found. He is, in general, against it. He was on the Rumsfeld commission.

And he is a serious heavyweight. I tremble in fear that I would taunt some anti BMD type on the physics and it would be him.

I remember seeing him discuss something like this many years ago on McNeil Lehrer. The other folks presenting other opinions, including a hack politician were rather intimidated to say the least.

And, with anyone that really understands it, he is a good teacher. He makes sense.

Some real high powered ammo for the antiBMD crowd, but they seem to have run out of steam, and I tire of the same old nonsense.

For what it's worth, he does seem to think that the boost phase might well work.

gisterme - 09:16pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5726 of 5746)

dirac_10 6/21/01 8:43pm

"...because it provides some protection against cheating.

That, I don't see."...

That could only work if the numbers of ICBMs have been greatly reduced. Since the US and Russia are no longer enemies it seems that a strong and trusting relationship should be possible to build over time. Given such a relationship a negotiated method of standing down ICBMs with good mutual transparancy should be possible. That's already been done on a smaller scale with some theater ballistic missiles. In that sort of a situation it would be hard to hide large numbers of ICBMs. A BMD will be effective against small numbers of ICBMs. That's what I mean by protection against cheating.

possumdag - 09:20pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5727 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

Rumsfeld wants to shake-up the USA military ...

possumdag - 09:25pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5728 of 5746)
Possumdag@excite.com

She's the cat's mother, but who was the 'He' on the news hour, and re last poster(who seemes to understand USA foreign policy completly) .. what's the origin of calling Bwsh - Dubya - and what does it mean exactly ..

gisterme - 09:26pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5729 of 5746)

possumdag wrote: "... that's coming back to the point re USA not having the competence to 'plan' an electricity supply ... a much simpler task .."

Ummm, not when California environmental laws have made it impossible to build new power plants, as has been the case for many years, possumdag. That has nothing to do with planning. It has more to do with political pandering to SIGs. It also has a lot to do with a lack of common sense on the part of California state legislators. Fortunately those California legislators haven't yet tried to take over the jobs of scientists and engineers. Just a matter of time I suppose...

dirac_10 - 09:27pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5730 of 5746)

If Russia and Communist China didn't exist, would France worry about the US nuking them?

How about California? Would GW nuke them?

At what point does the "trust" become reasonable and certain?

gisterme - 09:34pm Jun 21, 2001 EST (#5731 of 5746)

At what point does the "trust" become reasonable and certain?

Can't give a truly objectve answer to that, dirac. I'd say that trust is reasonable when both parties feel that it is. I'd also say that for trust to be certain would take a lot longer than that, if it's even possible. That's the reason that a hedge against cheating could help everybody feel better and be safer in pursuing a more certain trust. Could only happen in a "small arsenal" environment.

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense