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 - 01:35pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6059 of 6062)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'd like to repeat the posts that ended this thead on June 24th.
MD5978 rshowalter 6/24/01 9:00pm .... MD5979 rshowalter 6/24/01 9:01pm
MD5980 rshowalter 6/24/01 10:21pm

Let me add a fact that I believe a loyal United States citizen should be permitted to post.

The resolution of the SPACE TELESCOPE is about 4.9 x 10e-7 radians with visable light -- about half that for UV light. (Source THE HUBBLE WARS by Eric Chaisson )

Proposals for shooting down missiles with lasars require targeting resolution from a moving target to a moving target of the order of 1 x 10e-7 radians . MD5995 rshowalter 6/25/01 1:30pm

This, in control terms, requires actuator and control feedback information resolution about 5 times tighter than 10e-7 radians at every stage, in the real envoronment, with the optical medium as it is - and a detectable signal with that resolution must exist for every paramater that the control calculation needs (in real time.)

The classified labs may have achieved this. But a reasonable person can doubt that they have - on the basis of knowledge of what can be done with open technology. I believe that one ought to be able to say so in the United States of America.

gisterme - 03:13pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6060 of 6062)

rshowalter wrote: "...gisterme , raises the threat that I'm committing treason..."

Woah, Robert. Let's step back for a minute. That's not what I think I said at all. Let's CHECK. Here's what thought I REALLY said:

gisterme 6/25/01 7:45pm "...Robert, you know as well as I do that things like radar resolution and control capabilites are CLASSIFIED when it comes to defense programs. If you had that information and published it, you would have committed treason against your country..."

Is this another post you failed to read carefully? That's just an observation and statement of fact Robert. The same would apply to me or any other citizen. No threat or accusation there. Your claim of a threat is deceptive.

Then, Robert, you followed up your "misread" with: "...Lies are dangerous. We need to deal with some of them, that keep the Cold War going, when we should put it behind us..."

Lies ARE dangerous, Robert. Quit trying to create them by twisting what others say. While that statement is not untrue in and of itself, it serves to reinforce and amplify the previous deceptive statement when the two are linked. Keep in mind that YOU can be checked too.

You also wrote in a later post, regarding your cogitations about what a BMD control system MIGHT need to do:

"...I believe that one ought to be able to say so in the United States of America..."

Nobody, especially me has ever denied that it's your right to say what you want about what you THINK. Why do you imply that I say that? Let's CHECK my position on that:

gisterme 6/14/01 9:25pm "...You're certainly entitled to think and say whatever you want Robert. I'd defend your right to do that to the point of violence if necessary; but those statements are a ridiculoulsy subjective basis for the very shakey conclusions you've drawn..."

Guessing about anything or just saying goofy stuff is not a violation of trust. It's your right, Robert. Stop claiming that I deny that.

Please quit trying to put words in my mouth. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you need to work a bit on your reading retention, Robert, instead of saying..."you're the one that needs to stick to the truth here".

You've accused me of being deceptive, Robert, but never backed up the statement when challenged. Do you claim that your "conclusions" were not intended to be deceptive in this exchange?

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense