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?
(7928 previous messages)
- 06:43am Aug 20, 2001 EST (#7929
- 08:25am Aug 20, 2001 EST (#7930
Robert Showalter email@example.com
8/20/01 6:25am is beautiful -- worth seeing and thinking
about. Sometimes "powers of ten" are hard to come by.
In missile defense, which was set out in the beginning as a
bluff, we have good bluffs -- for bluffing people and organizations
as they are. Things are hidden where they CAN be easily hidden.
Not hidden in the words - which can be easily understood.
Not hidden the pictures drawn by imaginative and talented
commercial artists -- that make the projects easy to "imagine" and
The place to hide the improbabilities and impossibilities (and
there are many of these) is in the numbers
-- the detailed numbers that people generally don't look
When you look at the numbers involved in making lasar "death
ray" weapons of any kind work -- well the thing is technically
impossible, and easy to defend against. When you look at the
numbers of what it would take to really build an
effective "smart rock" missile defense, either the one now being
"tested" or one that might actually be workable -- the questions of
"how much?" -- about key technical details aren't answered.
When they are answered, the program is clearly, plainly, far fetched
- not worth betting American or world security on, or money on.
Once some of those points are made clear -- which will take work,
but which can be done -- it will be clear, no matter what your
politics may happen to be -- that the Bush missile defense program
is a fraud -- cannot work -- and that key people in the
administration have to know it.
The clarification can be done, without breaching security walls,
in terms of standard open literature engineering - judgeable by
professional engineers with credentials to lose -- at the level of
showing what "technical miracles" the DOD contractors will have to
come up with to make missile defense a realistic program.
There are many such miracles -- and many of them unlikely
indeed -- especially in combination.
That can be made clear. It will take some work, and some force,
but I believe that, with the stakes involved, it will happen. A big
issue is getting the information presented so the it can be widely
understood, and clarified, subject to examination from all sides,
beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard, in significant ways, is the
standard very often met in litigation.
- 01:01pm Aug 20, 2001 EST (#7931
Russia Official: No Missile Progress By THE ASSOCIATED
" MOSCOW (AP) -- The chairman of the Russian
parliament's defense committee said no progress was made in his
talks Monday with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton on the
two countries' dispute over Washington's plans for a national
" ``We have not heard from the Americans a
clear-cut explanation of what it is that is not to their liking in
the (1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty,'' Andrei Nikolayev was
quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.
" The treaty prohibits national missile
defenses as a way to discourage nuclear attack.
" He said Bolton asked him what Russia's
response would be if the United States pulls out of the treaty,
which American officials have said could happen in a matter of
months. Nikolayev said Russian officials are preparing a response,
but did not say what it would be.
" President Vladimir Putin has said Russia
would pull out of other arms controls treaties and could equip
existing single-warhead missiles with multiple warheads.
" Washington says it wants an anti-missile
shield to defend it against attacks by small states such as North
Korea and Iraq, and that the ABM treaty is a relic of the Cold
Comment: Technical FACTS about what can be done matter here,
and need to be clarified. The administration is pushing a program
that cannot work in any strategically meaningful sense, for reasons
that have not been given "a clear cut explanation."
" Moscow opposes changes to the treaty, saying
it is a guarantor of international stability, and that withdrawing
from it would prompt a new arms race that Russia could not
Comment: The cost of this "arms race" is a question of
fact , and key technical facts on the issue ought to be, and
can be determined, given the will to have them determined.
" The key meeting in Bolton's weeklong trip to
Moscow will be with Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov on
" Meanwhile, a senior U.S. air force delegation
arrived in Moscow on Monday for talks on military cooperation.
" The head of the delegation, Lt. Gen. Thomas
Keck of the U.S. Air Force, will fly on a Russian nuclear bomber,
the Tu-22MZ, after training on flight simulators, the ITAR-Tass
and Interfax news agencies reported.
" The group will also meet with the head of
Russia's Air Force, Gen. Anatoly Kornukov, and visit aircraft
bases in Ryazan, Engels and Saltsty, the reports said. The visit
runs until Aug. 25.
U.S. Air Force Commander to Fly in Russian Bomber By
"A top U.S. arms official flies into Moscow this
week for talks with Russian officials hungry for pledges on
nuclear arms cuts that could clear the way for a deal on missile
New York Times on the Web Forums Science