![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (6842 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 10:49am Jul 10, 2001 EST (#6843
of 6861) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
MD4598 rshowalter
6/8/01 6:50am comments on
Rumsfeld Outlines to NATO Fast Track for Missile Shield by
JAMES DAO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/world/08NATO.html
Rumsfeld's position looked duplicitous and foolhardy then, and
looks considerably worse now.
at the end of Dao's story today, there was a report of recent
testing -- where contractors and the government can't get the
Patriot - which failed in the Gulf War, to work yet. rshowalter
7/10/01 8:03am
The results - which have been consistently miserable by
reasonable tactical standards, -- cast extreme doubt on the ability
of this administration, and these contractors -- to make any
missile defense work -- including a "close in, boost phase, smart
rock" proposal is at least theoretically possible.
The bulk of what is being proposed would take miracle after
miracle in terms of what is known in the open literature.
By reasonable standards -- the odds of many of these "miracles"
are vanishingly small.
In addition, immuity to our lasar weapons, even if they
were "perfect" otherwise -- is easy to get with reflective
coatings. MD6827 rshowalter
7/10/01 8:58am includes a link showing, on the basis of standard
references - how basic the coating technology needed actually is http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm
rshowalter
- 12:13pm Jul 10, 2001 EST (#6844
of 6861)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
MD6764 smartalix
7/8/01 10:48am includes this:
"First, since neither Iraq nor Korea have, or will
have, ICBM capability for the forseeable future, any discussion of
their capability is moot. That is why I dismiss the "rogue
state" hypothesis central to the missile defense argument of the
dumya administration.
Here's detailed support for smartalix's position.
************
How Real Is The 'Rogue' Threat? MSNBC.com - June
19, 2001 by Robert Windrem, NBC News
" U.S. intelligence details missiles that fall
far short of U.S. shores As President Bush, forging ahead with
a plan to build a national missile shield, continues to trumpet
the threat posed by missiles from so-called "rogue" nations, no
missile currently deployed by countries hostile to the United
States has the range to strike any of the 50 U.S. states. And only
one missile system currently being developed by a foreign nation
would have such a capability in the near future, according to
intelligence and expert analysis.
" Of the five "rogue" states usually mentioned in discussions
of missile programs - Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and
Pakistan - only North Korea has what can be called an advanced
missile development program. North Korea's Taepo-Dong 2 missile,
still under development, would have the range to strike the United
States - but likely only at Alaska's thinly populated western edge,
or under the most optimistic assessments, the city of Anchorage.
While it would be the first missile strike on U.S. soil, it would do
little damage to U.S. strategic interests and would almost certainly
be met by a devastating U.S. counterstrike, and that would do little
damage to U.S. strategic interests, say U.S. officials.
" Only two of the five "rogue" nations - North Korea and
Pakistan - have nuclear weapons, and only Pakistan is believed
to have successfully built nuclear warheads for its missiles. While
U.S. intelligence believes North Korea has built one or two nuclear
weapons, there is no evidence that it has built missile warheads,
say U.S. intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Limited Programs ...The five countries' missile development
programs are hindered by other limitations, say U.S. officials
and independent experts:
*None has fielded a missile with a solid rocket
engine or even tested such an engine in flight. Each uses liquid
fuel engines, which require hours and in some cases days to load
and fire. A solid rocket engine can be lighted and fired within in
minutes.
*None of the states have extensive missile-launch
facilities or even missile-development facilities. North Korea's
facility on the Sea of Japan is limited to a single, unprotected
launch pad and nearby assembly building, connected by a dirt road.
*None have the industrial capability to build even
moderately large numbers of missiles.
"North Korea's Taepo Dong-2, the most advanced missile in
development by any of the "rogue" states, has yet to be fired
from the Koreans' rudimentary missile-test facility.
"Under the most optimistic assessments, the missile would have
a range of 3,600 miles when fielded, U.S. intelligence officials
say. At that 3,600-mile range, it could strike as far east as
Anchorage. If its range is at the low end of estimates - 2,400
miles - it could strike only the westernmost islands of Alaska's
sparsely populated Aleutian chain. The Taepo-Dong 2, named for the
city where it is built, would need a range of more than 4,800 miles
to strike the U.S. mainland, and somewhat less to hit Hawaii.
(more Windrem)
  (17
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
