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?

smartalix - 10:45am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6628 of 6639)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

Not only that, how large/heavy would a reliable power supply be for such a laser? How would that impact upon the carrier aircraft's range/speed/maneuverability? How many shots would a single aircraft be capable of?

lunarchick - 10:52am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6629 of 6639)
lunarchick@www.com

UK weapon manufacture has subsidy:
~ http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee854b8/0
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,516020,00.html

lunarchick - 10:53am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6630 of 6639)
lunarchick@www.com

Nite!

rshowalter - 11:01am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6631 of 6639)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

smartalix , the first line of my favorite book review starts:

"The sad truth about this sorry book is that it should never have been written."

The phrase applies in a surprising number of ways to missile defense programs.

They make the plot of The Producers seem naive !

If you search "shuck" on this thread, you'll find that I've said a few "unkind" things on the subject. But, compared to the reality of the case, I think I've been gentle indeed.

The main thing shown is that we now live in a culture where the 'literary culture' types, including political scientists, lawyers, and politicians -- don't have any real contact with engineers at all -- and don't know how to check -- and this offers opportunities for evasion and corruption that are on show, at many levels, all through this sorry affair.

The Science Times section of this paper is one of the main places in the world where bridges between the two cultures are built -- many of them beautiful bridges. But cases like "Star Wars" show how big the challenge of technical communication has come to be.

smartalix - 11:10am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6632 of 6639)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

Robert,

I think in the case of "missile defense" is not that it stems from a desire to simply turn our back on the rest of the world, it stems from the desire to have the ability to act with impugnity when- and wherever we choose.

The sick secret to MD as currently proposed is that it isn't for defense, it is for first-strike capability.

I am for further research, as well as eventual deployment as part of a multinational peace effort, but in its current incarnation, MD is pure arrogant folly.

rshowalter - 11:14am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6633 of 6639)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Behind you sick secret (and I'm not disagreeing with you) there's a whole additional layer of dishonesty and corruption. The stuff being proposed can't possibly work, on the basis of what people know and can do in the open world without some VERY specific and VERY unlikely "miracles."

Miracles found by people who can barely be trusted to check simple trigonometry and optics -- and do simple energy balances.

rshowalter - 11:16am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6634 of 6639)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Who have failed to do this simple checking.

It is engineering and corporate malpractice, or intentional fraud, or a mix of them. And it stinks.

The Republicans, most of all, have a strong interest in cleaning this up.

smartalix - 11:24am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6635 of 6639)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

I believe we will eventually overcome the technical obstacles, Robert, but not in the foreseeably near future.

smartalix - 11:25am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6636 of 6639)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

Fraud, waste, abuse, and the military-industrial complex go together like Army beans and gravy.

rshowalter - 11:31am Jul 5, 2001 EST (#6637 of 6639)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Me, I've spent much of my life digging down and finding an oversight made in the 1650's, by Newton's boss, Isaac Barrow --that's propagated through the system since.

Progress happens when people do possible things.

There are plenty of "good ideas" that turn out to have something wrong with them. When you find you're on one, the thing to do is find something else.

There isn't a single decent technical proposal for a missile defense program on the table, and people have been staring at the problem since the middle 50's.

I'm a technical optimist (in the large) because there are many good things to do.

We should find the good things , and not waste our lives and treasure on sh_t.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense