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 - 04:23pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6020 of 6027)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I've said before, in a discussion with you where you were reasonable, though you eventually declined the checking proposed, that things could be checked, and checked in a way that ordinary Congressional staffers, or ordinary voters, or ordinary professional engineers, would consider fair. Nothing inconsistent with American values at all. . . To the contrary. Honesty, and right answers, are as American as apple pie -- a reason why our country, so often, does so well.

As we both knows it does.

The nuclear situation is a mess. Messes happen from time to time. We should fix it -- and fix valid concerns that people from other countries have about America -- and we can do so without compromising a single good thing about America. We'd make it better. I'd be proud of that.

rshowalter - 04:31pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6021 of 6027)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

All right -- what, exactly, have I said that was outrageous?

It seems to me that I've been responding to issues that are connected -- almarst has thought so.

And ever since MD1126 rshowalter 3/17/01 4:57pm . . . when it seemed to me that a member of Putin's staff might actually be taking "time out" to listen -- I've been trying to build a bridge so that it might, at long last, be possible for Americans and Russians to talk to each other enough to make peace -- in a situation that was otherwise dynamically unstable.

I've been concerned about the safety of the world, and the interests of the United States, and have been doing my duty as best I've known how to do it.

And, I'd add, looking at the way things are shaking out -- maybe not doing badly.

rshowalter - 04:34pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6022 of 6027)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

And not doing any real damage at all to the United States, or the Bush administration, if you guys have sense enough to keep your heads up and stay honest.

( Which, on occasion, in my opinion, you do.)

But not always.

What have I said that is not in the national interest?

rshowalter - 04:36pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6023 of 6027)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

People have different views -- and I know that everyone likes the sound of their own voice -- maybe.

But when I read the thread, I think I've been knocking myself out to be clear, and to get information laid out cleanly enough so that a huge impasse between the Russians and the Americans could be bridged, to the advantage of all -- and in the cause of decency -- since I think the Russians have gotten a very rough shake.

rshowalter - 04:52pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6024 of 6027)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

What have I said that is not in the national interest?

11 words.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR AN ANSWER THAT CAN STAND THE LIGHT OF DAY .

dirac_10 - 06:01pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6025 of 6027)

smartalix - 02:47pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#5999 of 6024)

I asked dirac those same questions, and he dismissed them.

The fact is that we currently do not have the neccessary skill in optics to maintain a beam that tightly over a long distance in atmosphere.

As a matter of fact we do. It's called adaptive optics. And the boosters continue burning for approx 170 miles up. Not much air up there. Duh.

In addition, the inverse-square law dictates that the farther the beam has to go, the weaker it gets.

Wrong again. That is in the far field. When you focus something it gets stronger until it reaches a maximum and then starts the inverse square. Just like a magnifing glass. Duh.

The fact is that a boost-phase laser system ( I think I punched enough holes (pun intended) in the warhead-intercept scenario) would have to be aboard an aircraft flying along the border of the "rogue nation" to be of any utility,

Or in a satellite.

This does not address what happens if the launch occurs under heavy cloud cover, or on a foggy day.

170 miles is above the clouds. Duh.

This also does not address a booster coated with mirrors, ablative armor, or a combination of both.

No mirror is perfectly efficient. None work at all wavelengths. Boosters are big things. Weight is important. Putting "armor" on one will make it very difficult and probably not work.

This also does not address sub-launched missiles.

If laser tech was such a great solution for missile intercept, why isn't it currently used for anti-aircraft applications?

It is. Or soon will be in Israel. At apparantly 10 km. Wanna see a video of it shooting down rockets?

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense