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?
(7621 previous messages)
- 07:17pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7622
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?
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
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
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
- 07:31pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7623
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
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
- 07:41pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7624
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
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
" 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.
- 08:13pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7625
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
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
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,
Have you looked at the Coyle report? ... MD7622 rshowalter
7/30/01 7:17pm includes a link to it -- and some very direct
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.
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