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?

almarst-2001 - 06:44pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6091 of 6101)

If the US would care to prevent the Russia selling the advanced military equipment to the "undesirable" nations it should not exclude the Russian defence industry from the bids for NATO's needs. and it should insist the new NATO members keep and upgarde their military using the Russian help instead of bying the old US hardware. It will clearly benefit all but US defence contractors.

Otherwise one should not complain about Russian sales as it is the only competitive industry today and the second spource of revenues after the oil and gas.

Pure business, isn't it?

gisterme - 06:44pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6092 of 6101)

It's here, almarst.

gisterme 6/22/01 1:38pm

rshowalter - 06:48pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6093 of 6101)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If that's the answer, then there's not been a single proposal I've made for checking that couldn't be pretty well handled. -- It would reduce to a focusing question -- to do these jobs based on what's available in the open literature - would require N miracles -- (specifically set out )

Questions would arise on whether the miracles had been achieved. When the issues of resolution and control require as many breakthroughs as involved here -- people can reasonably judge.

rshowalter - 06:51pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6094 of 6101)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

One just below gisterme's reference above makes points I still think are basic. gisterme 6/22/01 1:38pm

gisterme - 06:52pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6095 of 6101)

rshowlater wrote: "...What people can doubt is how much, that is classified, actually matters in the case..."

Folks certainly can doubt, Robert, but it's up to the government to decide what "acutally matters" when it comes to classified information. I think the government philosphy is "better safe than sorry" when it comes to defense.

rshowalter - 06:55pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6096 of 6101)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

To judge "safe" takes some technical competence, and honesty, that the government sometimes appears to lack. "Trust us, you can't check us" -- well - can't you justify anything at all on that basis? $1500/ American sure is a lot of money. Is it justified?

rshowalter - 07:08pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6097 of 6101)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD 4485 rshowalter 6/4/01 7:01am

Laser Project Hits a Snag; Court Hints At Conflict by JAMES GLANZ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/30/science/30NIF.html

There seems to be a lot of conflict of interest.

gisterme - 07:33pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6098 of 6101)

rshowlater wrote: "...For instance -- lasar missile defense requires, at MANY stages - system precision greater than has been achieved on the Space Telescope. That's a checkable fact..."

Okay, Robert show why tracking a flaming rocket booster at say 10,000 km distance would be impossible for the space telescope but tracking and photographing a disintegrating asteroid out by the orbit of Jupiter, about 778,000,000 km would be possible?

We both know that's an "apples and oranges" question, just as it was when you first proposed it. The HST was not designed to track fast moving objects that are nearby (relatively large angular velocity) although it may be able to. I couldn't say for sure. However, I think the numbers you presented for the radial resolution of the Hubble may be suspect since I believe the Hubble is able to resolve individual stars in galaxies that are thousands of light years away. That involves more than just pointing and clicking a shutter. One thousand light-years is a distance of about 9.4x10^12 km. That means that the Hubble has precise enough control to hold its focus for long periods of time in spite of its curved orbital motion. MUCH more difficult than tracking a hot close rocket booster.

I think that's correct, Robert, but YOU check this time. If you're right, and I'm wrong, there should be some NASA.gov links to back you up.

WRT maintaining "calibration" on sensitive equipment, welcome to the digital age, Robert. Updating calibration is not the same kind of problem it was back in the "analog servo" days. How do you suppose the HST maintains calibration? You MUST concede that point if your technical knowledge is at all current. :-)

gisterme - 07:50pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6099 of 6101)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 6/26/01 6:55pm ): i "...$1500/ American sure is a lot of money. Is it justified?..."

Well, let's see...assuming that your $1,500 figure is in the ball park, Robert, that would be $150/year per American over a 10 year program. Personally, if an attack seemed imminent (the stated prerequisite for early untested deployment of BMD) I'd be willing to pay $150.00/year to even get a one-in-three chance of preventing some American city being nuked. I'm sure that's way better odds/dollar than what I've received cumulatively for lotto tickets I've bought in my lifetime.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense