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 - 08:16pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9883 of 9895)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , nice to have your posts. Going back, trying to respond to one of them, I missed the others. I'd like a chance to read, digest, and think about what you've said (which I haven't read yet.) Perhaps you'll show me wrong on some basic technical examples.

I would like to say that testing is very expensive, and the number of things that can be tested is so limited, even on a multibillion dollar program, that engineers almost always do a great deal of calculating - to predict what can be done, and to guide their testing. (You don't have to trust my word on this -- I think any professional engineer will agree with the need for extensive calculations, and the value of them. )

I said something in MD7096 rshowalter 7/16/01 6:00pm reinforced by MD7097 that you responded to, with 6 links in MD7107 gisterme 7/16/01 9:24pm

I responded, with arguments and links to what was specifically involved in your MD7107 in
MD7139 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:24pm .. MD7140 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:25pm
MD7141 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:26pm

I'd hoped at the time that you'd respond to those links. Perhaps you can do so now. The issues involved are technical, and simple. There are "show stoppers" on the lasar weapons program.

There are similar problems in missile defense elsewhere, I believe.

It seems to me that this is enough posting for me tonight. I'll respond to your postings above carefully, when I've had more time, and am rested, in the morning. I appreciate the effort that those posting represent, and I'll read them carefully, and think about them carefully.

rshowalter - 08:32pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9884 of 9895)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I have read the other links, gisterme , and I'm taking them seriously. But I'm going to leave it till the morning. Thanks for the effort of writing them.

gisterme - 09:37pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9885 of 9895)

"...A spreading angle of 1.6 nanoradians was quoted -..."

Not true, Robert. That was the angle of incidence of the target...hoping to get just the response you've given. Remeber, that was the post where I gave you the rope to see if you'd hang yourself and you did?

"...when the actual spreading rate was about ten thousand times greater than gisterme thought (for attenuation about a hundred million times greater than gisterme thought -- a serious problem for a lasar that has to burn a hole in something.)..."

Perfect, Robert. You're hanging your hat on a missing peg... again. Can't believe you'd step in the same snare twice. You still don't understand that, do you?

Since you have misquoted me about "spreading angle" of the HST I'll clarify that as is done in posts that do quote optical beam divergence. The optical beam divergence for the Wide Field Planetary Camera aboard HST is 0.053 milli-Arc Seconds. That's 0.25 micro Radians. That's the figure used for optical divergence in the calculations that show the feasibility of laser weapons using existing technology. Those are the ones that you are trying to mislead about.

I liked it better when I thought you were ignoring this stuff, Robert.

gisterme - 09:41pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9886 of 9895)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 9/28/01 8:16pm ):

"...There are similar problems in missile defense elsewhere, I believe..."

Yes, similar in your misunderstanding of what's possible, and even of what's been done already, Robert.

kangdawei - 10:05pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9887 of 9895)

One has to wonder about Robert's crusade against this missle system.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

almarst-2001 - 11:00pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9888 of 9895)

The sad thing is most Americans can't even apprehend why would someone hate them.

Is it a strange degree of "feel-good-about-self" infantelizm or result of ultimate success of brainwashing by "free" media, does not matter.

For the first time they got the smallest degree of a pain their military so cherefully spread all around. For no justefiable reason.

Based on intial reaction - this did not change the perception of the world for the most.

A very sad fact indeed.

As for the latest opus of Mr. Friedman - it just exsemplefies the same line of thought which brought to the power the line of humanoids from Pinochet to Ben Laden. I wonder who is going to be the next monster?

almarst-2001 - 11:06pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9889 of 9895)

WALL STREET JOURNAL: BUSH SR. IN BUSINESS WITH BIN LADEN FAMILY CONGLOMERATE THROUGH CARLYLE GROUP - http://www.judicialwatch.org/press_release.asp?pr_id=1624

almarst-2001 - 11:22pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9890 of 9895)

As long as US actions will spread the death of innocent and fuel the hatered of millions, no MD will prevent the terror.

As should be expected, the deterrance against overhelming brutal force will be all kind of assimetric responses, including the indiscriminate and cruel terror.

This should have being expected. As well as a quick destruction of what remaind of US "democracy".

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense