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?
(7087 previous messages)
- 05:17pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7088
7/15/01 11:07am ... MD7050 rshowalter
7/15/01 12:18pm ... MD7052 rshowalter
7/15/01 12:26pm ... MD7054 rshowalter
7/15/01 1:14pm ... MD7057 rshowalter
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 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/politics/16FLOR.html
They should also remember the POWER of
- 05:38pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7089
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. ~ http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=83599
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.
- 05:41pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7090
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.
- 05:48pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7091
Does Starwars work - The Guardian http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/bush/flash/0,7365,434805,00.html
- 05:50pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7092
- 05:51pm Jul 16, 2001 EST (#7093
Dawn, the people in General Kadish's operation did a good job, in
a technically real sense, and pulled off a very difficult
Difficult today, for the same reasons that it has been difficult
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
New York Times on the Web Forums Science