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 - 07:17pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7622 of 7771)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme, that's a most helpful response.

When you say

" There's a lot more evidence that BMD will work than there is that it can't . . ."

are you referring to the program that is basically a continuation of the program discussed in the Coyle Report?

MD7096 rshowalter 7/16/01 6:00pm . . . reads in part:

gisterme, I've agreed that "smart rock" approaches can work, at some level, for simple enough cases. You should read the Coyle Report

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT READINESS REVIEW 10 August 2000 . . . . http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf/nmdcoylerep.pdf

and look at the many details that are being finessed -- just to see how far from satisfactory the situation is -- even for the "smart rock" approach.

The lasar approaches can't work at all.

There are a lot of facts, about the operational hopelessness of the lasar approaches to BMD -- and "brilliant pebbles" has fatal control problems, as well.

Just what BMD program is it that "there's a lot of evidence for?"

If the "evidence for" and "limitations" were clearly set out, would there be anything rational representatives of the public would want to buy?

I'd like, if possible, for you to refer to proposals on the table.

rshowalter - 07:31pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7623 of 7771)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm a person who need checking, as all other people do as well.

When stakes are high, people should want to be checked, because they should, as human beings, be for right answers.

Sometimes, people forget to check, and mistakes happen. In MD7597 rshowalt 7/30/01 7:11am I posted a link to a sermon, also discussed in MD5980 rshowalter 6/24/01 10:21pm and elsewhere, and didn't check the link. The link was defective. Here is the correct link. . http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/sermon.html ...

gisterme - 07:41pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7624 of 7771)

Robert, your motiviation must be purely political, public well-veing be damned. Anything you don't want to hear you simply ignore and bury it in a pile or rhetoric.

You've previously agreed that boost phase intercept technology is possible.

You challenged me to show that laser technology could be workable using public information about existing technology. I did that in detail. You just ignored it and you continue your denial.

You saw a direct hit a couple of weeks ago by an interception system that is in the very early stages of development, fourth shot of probably about 100. You say it can't work.

Despite all that, you posted earler today, this Showalter amplification:

" The Pentagon has not yet developed any technology, even on paper, at the level of plans that could be presented for examination by independent experts , that can or could possibly, much less reliably, shoot down enemy missiles.

You don't really care what is possible and what is not. You only seem care about how much volume of text you produce. You never say anything new...just the same old stuff, over and over. That's why this forum is largely a waste of time. The one consolation is that what you write here will have no impact, one way or another, on wheter a BMD is built or not. It's apparent that your's is a small-minority view. Sorry to rain on your parade.

rshowalter - 08:13pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7625 of 7771)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Very interesting response.

The following is an amazingly false statement.

" gisterme: You challenged me to show that laser technology could be workable using public information about existing technology. I did that in detail."

I showed, in detail, that lasar technology cannot be workable -- specifically responding to your points, one by one, and in detail.

I stand by every word of the following:

" The Pentagon has not yet developed any technology, even on paper, at the level of plans that could be presented for examination by independent experts , that can or could possibly, much less reliably, shoot down enemy missiles."

At any level that would make tactical sense, that's right. If an exception needs to be made about the Garwin proposal -- O.K. -- though I doubt it has to be. Precious little of the budget is linked to the Garwin proposal. And if the Garwin proposal was the only request you were putting to the Russians and the NATO nations, and the other nations of the world, there would be far less concern than there is.

On the issue of the significance of this thread. You wouldn't be here, and wouldn't have been here so much, if you thought this forum was insignificant.

You're making statements that can be checked - - and that are wrong again and again.

And the thread is a record that can be checked for consistency itself. There are many other consistency checks that can be applied, too.

Have you looked at the Coyle report? ... MD7622 rshowalter 7/30/01 7:17pm includes a link to it -- and some very direct questions.

The Coyle Report shows, and there are ways to emphasize the point, that at the tactical level, the "smart rock" program Coyle reports on is hopeless.

Want details?

I asked: Do you have any specific program to point to that make any sense?

We've talked rather specifically about checking -- and for a while you were very strongly against it. Might it be possible to do that checking now ? -- It would take some organization -- and would have to happen in public.

The lasar programs don't make any operational sense at all, and neither do any other programs actually proposed in public for the militarization of space.

(146 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense