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 - 07:37pm Aug 22, 2001 EST (#8018 of 8047)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"The Bush administration proposed that both countries jointly withdraw from the treaty, but the Russians rejected that approach when it was presented by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in Moscow on Aug. 13.

"After Rumsfeld's return to Washington, he and his aides began stating more explicitly in public the option of withdrawing from the treaty -- an option they had mentioned but not emphasized earlier.

"In an Aug. 17 interview with PBS Newshour, Rumsfeld was asked to respond to comments by Russian officials that if the United States violated or abandoned the treaty, then Russia might feel compelled to add multiple nuclear warheads to missiles in its arsenal which currently have single warheads.

`` If we are unable to establish a new relationship with Russia so that we can get the treaty behind us ... then obviously the United States would have to give notice'' of its intent to withdraw, Rumsfeld said.

" Three days earlier, he made a similar remark in an interview with KSDK-TV in St. Louis, while adding that if the United States withdrew from the treaty, it would continue talking with the Russian government about establishing a new security relationship.

Eds: Robert Burns covers military affairs for The Associated Press from the Pentagon

rshowalter - 07:42pm Aug 22, 2001 EST (#8019 of 8047)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

As near as I can tell, nothing except Garwin's close in - smart rock - boost phase program can work, in the entire set of proposals. I think it should be possible to show that. Show it to ordinary people who take a look. Show it to professionals inclined or forced to pay attention. Show it with reference to open literature information --- to the level of showing the many "miracles" that would be required of classified research. In these circumstances, open literature information contains all the information needed for sound conclusions, especially when correllated with the Coyle Report.

Some of what I have in mind for establishing these things is set out in

MD7935 rshowalter 8/20/01 9:08pm and MD 7936 rshowalter 8/20/01 9:08pm

Illustration tasks involved are set out in

MD7652 rshowalter 7/31/01 2:52pm MD7653 rshowalter 7/31/01 2:54pm

Some of the sorts of technical arguments that need to be illustrated are like those set out in the links set out in MD7653 (some of these connect to further links.) These happen to connect to lasar weapons - which are key components of the weaponization of space that seems to mostly motivate the Bush "missile defense" program.

These technical arguments, connected to lasars, are reprised, in response to " gisterme " -- who I believe directly represents top Bush administration people, in MD7712 rshowalter 8/1/01 3:00pm MD7713 rshowalter 8/1/01 3:03pm

At one level, I think the technical arguments set out above are pretty good. Analogous to the "discovery" phase of technical litigation. -- But to get the "ready for prime time" would involve much more -- including good illustration work.

It seems to me to be overwhelmingly important to get some facts straight. The lasar case is an example

We're dealing with disputes, and denials, about facts that can be determined.

rshowalter - 07:43pm Aug 22, 2001 EST (#8020 of 8047)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The language and responses in MD7671gisterme 7/31/01 8:34pm include this from gisterme about reflective coatings.

I'd written:

" it is easy to immunize missiles and reintry vehicles with optical coatings with reflectivity greater (and much greater) than 99% at the wavelength of the lasar. http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm I don't see how anyone who knows how reflective coatings work, and how easy they are to make, can continue to want to support lasars as serious weapons.

gisterme responded dismissively, on an technical point I'd made about a fact in the real world:

"The babble about reflective coatings that followed is just that.

Here's another dismissive passage, somewhat surprising given the very extensive interaction gisterme has engaged in on this thread. MD6792 gisterme 7/9/01 12:41pm

The key answer is in MD6796 rshowalter 7/9/01 1:13pm On matters of fact, people should be able to look for themselves - - - and if stakes are high, they have a responsibility to look.

We are dealing here with a situation where FACTS are going to matter a great deal. I'm terribly wrong, along with very many other people who agree with me, or the Bush administration is terribly wrong.

Islands of technical fact, that are right regardless of how people happen to feel, or what their politics happens to be, need to be established. Because the stakes are high enough that being right should be an obligation.

If ever there was a matter of life and death -- a matter where getting right answers should be morally forcing , this is it.

Americans should care about the truth here. People in other nations must, too.

In a while I'll be reviewing a bit about what's been done on this thread, and the degree of involvement of its main participants.

(27 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense