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 - 01:23pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8109 of 8127)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There are other examples. That can be checked, to the extent that they are specified in detail.

When these things are made clear -- the rationale for missile defense becomes much more examinable than it now is.

A phrase I heard in Washington that I liked was this:

" There's no there there.

I believe, as many others do, that the proposals lack reality. We need to show that -- and show it well enough to work, not only for specialists, but for the people who serve on juries.

(Horror stories aside, the juries usually get things right, when evidence is well presented.)

wrcooper - 01:30pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8110 of 8127)

rshowalter 8/24/01 1:19pm

I was under the impression that the limited BMD program envisioned by the Bush administration had no intention of using beamed-energy weapons. My understanding was that only smart pebble-type devices were contemplated.

In my view, the biggest problem faced by any BMD system is target acquisition and penetrating countermeasures such as decoys. I just don't see how they'll be able to defeat such inexpensive means of tricking the the onboard targeting systems. The antimissile missiles get only a single chance to strike their targets. The notion that the computers will work right in real time under wartime conditions and that the sensors will detect the true targets, as opposed to the dummies, stretches credibility to the breaking point.

It's a Rube Goldberg fantasy.

rshowalter - 01:39pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8111 of 8127)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A problem involves force -- just as getting to true testimony involves force, latent or in action.

If professional engineers, with names and credentialling at risk, said the technical things gisterme has said -- well -- it would be possible, reasonably directly, to see if those engineers were right, or if I was -- on specific issues.

And if arguments weren't good enough, they could be refined. The question "what is possible in terms of what is known to be attainable" is a well defined question, when it is applied to cases where the causal sequences can be examined in detail.

Based on my knowledge of the circumstances, it would take some sort of force to get engineers to stand up and do that in the United States of America -- and people responsible for decisions about the program are the people who should be defending it.

* * * * *

Certain things ought to be clear.

For example, for space lasar weapons to work, they need optical dispersions much less than Hubble's -- and known "adaptive optics" schemes don't come even close to doing what would be needed.

That can be shown -- and shown well enough to be presented clearly before a jury.

It takes work to show such things --- but given the stakes here, that work ought to be amply justified.

And it will take some force, as well. But in the interest of the United States, and the world, this checking should be done.

rshowalter - 01:42pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8112 of 8127)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

wrcooper 8/24/01 1:30pm there's a whole spectrum of things being proposed.

I've used the lasar examples because they happen to be easy - the Hubble pictures are pretty -- and some of the biggest "hopes" or "fears" about the weaponization of space hinge on lasar weapons.

But if you look at the Coyle Report -- and sort out in detail the problems it actually identifies -- there are many VERY difficult problems -- where it will take "miracles" to get adequate function. And the decoys issue, just by itself, has a number of these.

rshowalter - 02:12pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8113 of 8127)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Nobody has to trust my credibility, or anybody else's. The arguments can be set out clearly, for all to see, in areas where things can be checked and crosschecked in very many ways, and conclusions can be drawn.

I've used the word "shuck" to describe the missile defense proposals I've seen. I've used the word, thinking of tactical requirements -- assuming that these "weapons" are supposed to do more than cost money.

Lots of other people have said similar things.

So far, I've not seen any reason to change my mind, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

It seems to me that we need to get beyond name calling here, and beyond issues of "personal credibility" here.

We need to arrange to get essential technical questions answered to a level that would stand up in a real court -- and in the court of public opinion -- nationwide, and world wide.

Given the stakes, I feel that this should be morally forcing.

tallulahb1 - 03:31pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8114 of 8127)

How bizarre....shrub's talking to school children and thinks (oops there's the problem...he doesn't) it appropriate to discuss reneging on an Antiballistic Missle treaty? Isn't that just what you want your son or daughter to dwell on? Gee, we can tell them all about the days of "duck & cover" drills and building bomb shelters in the backyard...before we start doing both again.

I keep thinking this is all just a nightmare...darn, I'm awake....tho it IS a still nightmare.

(13 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense