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.

gisterme - 10:01am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15145 of 15156)

continued...

"...The situation with Bush’s NMD program is actually worse than this, because what tests have been performed have largely discredited it..."

That's a highly subjective statement, Will. What information from the test program do you have that would back that up?

So far as I know of the flight tests, four out of seven have been considered completely successful. At least one other was considered a partial success. All those flights have been parts of the test program. Even when there's a failure, that doesn't mean that everyting failed. Even from a failure we can learn what failed and what didn't...which points out what needs work and what doesn't. A failure might only mean that there was an undetected software bug or...how about a badly installed o-ring?...or some guy forgetting to convert between English and metric units? See the point? Such tests are used to exercise "theoretically sound" new hardware in the real world environment. It's only by tests like that where the "theoretical perception" of the labs and reality ultimately meet.

"...This is not the way to run a railroad,..."

True. Good thing this isn't a railroad. Still, I'd point out that many of first modern diesel locomotives ran on track laid before the diesel engine was even invented. Should we have not laid track before the diesels came along?

"...not to mention national security..."

BMD is one component of national defense. National defense is one component of national security. Think about that.

"...Furthermore, the threat from ICBMs is currently nonexistent..."

Sure. The guy next door is making a bow and arrow that he says he intends to shoot my kids with; but it's not done yet so I won't worry about it yet. When the bow is done and one of my kids is shot, I'll just worry about it then. That might be good enough for you, Will, but it's not good enough for me. The time to close the barn door is before the horses get out.

There are plenty of ICBMs out there. Have we forgotten MAD so soon? So far (we hope) nobody irrational enough to try to use an ICBM has managed to get any. Let's also don't forget that the other thing that a BMD can provide is defense against an accidental launch or hijacking of one of those hundreds or thousands of aging Russian and Chinese models.

"...and could be met, in the future, more effectively and economically by using other means..."

You hope. This administration and the previous one apparantly don't agree with that. Perhaps there's a desire to avoid putting too many eggs into one basket.

rshow55 - 10:04am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15146 of 15156)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

. Gisterme: Ultimately, the only way we can find out what "full scale" problems might be is to work at full scale. To learn such things in a lab or by computer modelling is way beyond our current ability.

You could do a lot better than you're doing. Some of the things Kline taught still haven't been well and broadly learned - and on some key simulation problems - there's a lot more that can be done. Not everything - but enough to make the process much more efficient. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Similitude_ForceRatios_sjk.htm

rshow55 - 10:08am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15147 of 15156)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

There are arguments in favor of BMD - the question is balance. Doing some "learning by doing" isn't necessarily a bad idea.

But the basic facts of the difficulty of the job mean that BMD can't be any more than a stopgap. We need to reduce risks in other ways.

rshow55 - 10:34am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15148 of 15156)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

. Gisterme: Ultimately, the only way we can find out what "full scale" problems might be is to work at full scale. To learn such things in a lab or by computer modelling is way beyond our current ability.

Or as full a scale as you can get.

For instance - to learn how the associative logic of the brain condenses and converges as well as it does to form logic and judgements - you may have to simulate as much of the process as you can - with resources available - at the largest scale you can arrange.

Same goes for modelling discourse between people - each with their own brains.

I believe that this thread has been the largest scale attempt to do that sort of simulation done so far.

That's not been an accident - and lchic and I aren't alone in working on the effort - knowing what the effort is, and what the stakes involved are.

A lot of mistakes - but some valuable lessons are likely to coverge, as well. For example - association in an inteconnected field yeild both interesting things you knew you were looking for - and interesting things you didn't have in mind - but may be glad to see.

For example - search Byrd .

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense