[F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (7087 previous messages)

rshowalter - 05:17pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7088 of 7107) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

MD7049 rshowalter 7/15/01 11:07am ... MD7050 rshowalter 7/15/01 11:07am
MD7051 rshowalter 7/15/01 12:18pm ... MD7052 rshowalter 7/15/01 12:22pm
MD7053 rshowalter 7/15/01 12:26pm ... MD7054 rshowalter 7/15/01 12:31pm
MD7056 rshowalter 7/15/01 1:14pm ... MD7057 rshowalter 7/15/01 1:18pm

There are patterns of conduct that the administration cannot take, and cannot stand for, if it says, to american citizens, or to people of other nations . . .

trust us -- because you have no choice - - we have the power.

Human beings sometimes find a way to keep from being so vulnerable as that -- once they wake up.

The stakes here are high. People should remember the power of free institutions, Democrats Seek Inquiry on Florida Vote Count By RICHARD L. BERKE

They should also remember the POWER of one.

lunarchick - 05:38pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7089 of 7107)

    Yesterday's test proves only that the easiest technological issue has been resolved: that it is possible to hit a missile with another missile in mid-air or, in this case, in mid-thermosphere, at 145 miles above the Pacific Ocean. But that has been regarded as possible since before 1972, when the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was signed between the US and the Soviet Union the treaty which President Bush now intends to repudiate. ~
GI: from my post 7068 above.

So, if the Known routes, times, type, etc of one firework-rocket has been able to be intercepted by another for three decades .. and isn't NEWnews ... GI can you explain why it is being hailed as a breakthrough.

Had fire-rocket been launched with decoy, randomly, the chance of hitting it would be zero - is that right?

The hailing of the breakthrough is a sham - according to the above - that is supposed to release a churn of dollars into the defense zone from which the greedy will eat their fill.

Additionally - why do I have to go to LONDON news papers to be told the 'hit' relates to 30yearold knowledge ?

Can anyone pull up the same from the USA news outlets ... if not - what does this say about the ability of the press in what is laughingly thought of by Americans as the premiere democracy ?

GI: if you've covered this before in this board - re the 30 year old knowledge - put the citation forward. This will show that the NEWnews is OLDnews - so why are you putting out as if there's a new point of info when there isn't.

lunarchick - 05:41pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7090 of 7107)

If the event wasn't caught by independent news media at the scene of the 'hit' .. one would be skeptical ... i did once see a tv-program that gave away the 'secrets' of magicians.

lunarchick - 05:48pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7091 of 7107)

Does Starwars work - The Guardian,7365,434805,00.html

lunarchick - 05:50pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7092 of 7107)


rshowalter - 05:51pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7093 of 7107) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Dawn, the people in General Kadish's operation did a good job, in a technically real sense, and pulled off a very difficult stunt.

Difficult today, for the same reasons that it has been difficult for years.

For the purposes at hand, progress since the late Vietnam era hasn't been all that great on radar or missile controls, or rockets -- things were pretty advanced by the time we got to the moon.

If I were to do a 1/4 squat with 700 lbs on my back (and I can't do near that much) -- I'd be very proud of myself. That isn't a workable goal for this old man. But it is a thinkable goal.

7000 lbs wouldn't be.

The problems that would have to be faced for a credible missile defense aren't just 10 times harder than the problem of hitting a warhead (without an effective decoy) with another missile with plenty of warning.

Not just 1000 times harder.

For some of the control issues -- the problems are billions of times harder - - out of reach.

For reasons that would be straightforward to show, using information in the Coyle report, and standard results in Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming.

The program has no possibility of defending the United States in any sensible sense -- and at least many of the engineers involved, at Boeing, TRW, Lockheed-Martin, and elsewhere, have to know it.

The simulation people, who've been in trouble for more than a decade now, can't escape knowing what they are up against - not only in simulation, but in hardware which is harder.

We're dealing with a fraud - with its only justification giving the US military-industrial complex something to do --- and a way to enrich people with special "ins" -- such as the people at Carlyle.

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (14 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company