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 - 04:24pm Jul 8, 2001 EST (#6769 of 6774)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Perhaps I'll wait just a little while -- because gisterme has cautioned me to be careful of my trigonometry.

And that was good advice.

rshowalter - 04:49pm Jul 8, 2001 EST (#6770 of 6774)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD6761 rshowalter 7/8/01 8:17am

rshowalter - 05:12pm Jul 8, 2001 EST (#6771 of 6774)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The lasar based program, and probably everything in missile defense, should be shot right between the eyes.

MD6631 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@184.Paezaz7JqmE^4020455@.f0ce57b/7161... MD6632 smartalix 7/5/01 11:10am
MD6633 rshowalter 7/5/01 11:14am .... MD6634 rshowalter 7/5/01 11:16am

MD6637 rshowalter 7/5/01 11:31am (with modifications for Garwin's proposal, if one believes there is a threat that cannot be dealt with in other ways -- something there's reason to doubt.)

MD6638 smartalix 7/5/01 11:50am .... MD6639 rshowalter 7/5/01 12:04pm

rshowalter - 05:21pm Jul 8, 2001 EST (#6772 of 6774)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD6592 rshowalter 7/4/01 9:53pm

Loyal people, such as congressman, by trusting too much, can find that people have been making monkeys out of them.

Leading Scientists Push Missile Defense on CSpan. http://www.house.gov/curtweldon/missiledefense.html

If I were Curt Weldon I'd feel very ill used by this administration.

( Koko -- http://www.koko.org/news/062901.html ..... MD 6567 rshowalter 7/4/01 8:48pm )

(search Weldon.)

I think anyone in either the House or the Senate who has trusted the administration on missile defense has been ill served.

rshowalter - 06:55pm Jul 8, 2001 EST (#6773 of 6774)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In MD6741 gisterme 7/7/01 5:05pm gisterme made some very definite responses, and I was grateful for them.

( gisterme has paid much attention to this thread -- a search for "gisterme" gets 54 search pages)

Here MD6741 is:

Robert Showalter:

" ...Nobody who has ever shot a gun at a target, and experienced how hard the bullseye is to hit, compared to the outer circle, can possible believe that..."

gisterme:

" That's a baseless assumption about what folks can believe, Robert. Ever shoot a gun that has no recoil and whose masless bullet travels at 300,000km/Sec? Of course not. Ever aim a gun that has aiming accuracy to within "a few milliarcseconds"? I doubt it. Ever aim one with a 'scope having optics like the HST? Not likely.

(Comment: - that leaves the problems that don't depend on recoil, or the massless, high velocity nature of light -- that is, all the problems I've mentioned.

Robert Showalter:

" ...For one thing, it depends on how well you can see. And it also depends on what you have to shoot with, and how closely you can control the shots..."

gisterme:

" Exactly! You've made my point, Robert! Thanks. There's great technology involved; but no miracles required.

Comment: There are miracles required. And in terms of what has been achieved (not drawn by an imaginative commercial artist -- actually achieved) nothing that indicates that the resolutions required are actually possible actually works.

Perhaps gisterme can correct me here. His references have been useful in the past, and much appreciated.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense