[F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (1261 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:23pm Apr 11, 2002 EST (#1262 of 1264) Delete Message

Gisterme's responses in MD1234 gisterme 4/11/02 3:24am are interesting. Gisterme argues with the following statement:

"...Many details about this have already been set out at length on this thread - and discussed with gisterme , who, at the time, gave every indication of having discussed these issues with her (his) colleagues..." rshow55 rshow55 4/10/02 6:44pm

Gisterme says that I've been in the habit of "of ignoring technical analysis that has been posted here by ( gisterme ) is the example of your lack of desire to "check".

Have I shown such a habit ? Gisterme's right that :most of what's been written on this thread was deleted" at the beginning of March -- though neither (s)he nor I can lie about that material entirely safely. Copies exist, including mine, perhaps one or more gisterme has, and surely a copy at NYT. The thread could rather easily be put up again, if the NYT wished to do so. Giserme and I can both refer to examples, that we both know about -- and that the NYT can check if it wishes to.

Gisterme asks:

" . . . . since you've made this statement about me giving "every indication" that I have discussed things I have posted here with "collegues" I'd really like check what you base that statment on, Robert. . . . . Got an example?

Gisterme then makes a supposition.

No? I didn't think so. So much for your desire to "check".

I do have examples. Many of gisterme's posting give plenty of indication of consultation with colleagues.

Here is a posting, MD7136, from the deleted section of this thread - the NYT, or gisterme's colleagues, can check that it is not a forgery. It cites numbers of pieces also deleted. I've read them today, and will post them if requested to do so.

rshow55 - 03:24pm Apr 11, 2002 EST (#1263 of 1264) Delete Message

rshowalter - 12:05pm Jul 17, 2001 EST (#7136 of 7137) Robert Showalter

In MD7107 gisterme 7/16/01 9:24pm .. gisterme cites a number of references to dispute a statement of mine -- which was that the lasar programs, as weapons systems, don't work at all.

They are lasars. They are technically impressive in some ways. But they are not effective as weapons.

They are ineffective because of inescapably inadequate resolution in the radar and light optics systems taken as a whole.

They are ineffective because of inescapably inadequate adequate controls, for the system as a whole.

And, in addition, and most decisively, they are ineffective because 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.

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 cited a number of interesting references, that showed that the lasar program had achieved some technically difficult, and technically impressive results, and could be combined with other technology that was also impressive.

That doesn't make the progam any good at all as a weapons program.

MD6407 gisterme 7/2/01 3:25pm . . . MD6149 gisterme 6/27/01 3:06pm MD6424 gisterme 7/2/01 6:03pm . . . MD6519 gisterme 7/3/01 7:24pm

MD6648-52 gisterme 7/5/01 6:33pm

MD6722 gisterme 7/6/01 8:13pm

MD6812 gisterme 7/9/01 7:56pm

MD6827 rshowalter 7/10/01 8:58am ... reads in part

" It is technically easy to make missiles and warheads immune to lasar weapons -- even if the lasar weapons did achieve a chain of miracles related to optical resolution and control. See: Reflective Coatings "

"The engineers asking for money for the program, and promising to make a contribution to US defense have to know this.

"I'm at a loss, myself, to understand how this cannot be treason.

You don't have to trust what I say -- look for yourself . End of MD7136

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company