New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(15245 previous messages)
fredmoore
- 05:21pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (#
15246 of 15263)
wrcooper - 09:43am Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15231 of 15242)
Will,
'How would the US know what was a decoy and what wasn’t?
Also, such tests could be designed to provide misinformation,
possibly, were the US spy sats able to monitor them closely.'
It would be too expensive for attackers to mount such tests
for a deception only. Once tests were in the MIRV phase US
satellites and ground bases could characterise ALL materiel
and log the different signatures for cross referencing. This
database would assist in future detection and discrimination.
With advanced portable HPCS systems the RV's could be probed
beyond any Aluminium shields and definitive information on
their contents might well be possible. I agree however that
chemical or biological contents would be a bit more tricky to
deal with ... but not impossible. .
'The US detection capability may not be up to scratch as we
post but from my limited knowledge of coherent source
techniques, I can see the possibility of ultimately ruling out
realistically fielded decoy countermeasures
Why? 'If a warhead were encapsulated in an aluminized mylar
balloon, it would be indistinguishable during midcourse flight
from an empty balloon. Infrared signature differences between
the warhead package and decoys could be simulated with simple
heaters in the decoys. Such decoys would be relatively easy to
make and a large number of them could be contained in the
rocket nose cone with the warhead. '
Now I'm not saying that portable HPCS methods are available
yet. However I don't see any reason why a motivated R&D
effort in defence labs and universities could not come up with
such technology. Essentially, by targeting RV's with a
coherent high PRF source you could cause ionisation and
related HHG (high order harmonic generation) emissions from
within a target beyond any shields. Detection of the resulting
HHG can give significant information about the target and its
contents during the MIRV phase. Like I said, I'd rather be on
the 'Blue team' with the advanced R&D facilities than on
the 'red team'.
Cheers
mazza9
- 05:27pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (#
15247 of 15263) "Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic
Commentaries
WRCooper:
You and I agree that the NMD money would be better spent on
Lunar or Mars Colonies.
That being said, what is the modus operandi for weaning
mankind away from the concept of the sword is mightier than
the pen? Our friend Spock would say that WAR is not logical
but we live in a world where logic is often ignored! In the
game of chess a rook can be taken "en passant!" But when a
passant country like North Korea rattles sabers what do we do,
( or as in the case of Madeline Kahn's line in Young
Frankenstein..."What, exactly, is it that you do do?") The
Clinton idea was to eschew launch on warning, the Cold War
strike authorization paradigm. He retargetted our missiles to
aim points in the Pacific Ocean where many tuna would be
casseroled. He then adopted the launch on attack. I wonder how
many US citizens and cities would mark the threshold for
nuclear response?
Some say that MAD is sufficient. I don't. The art of war
and peace is yet to be enumerated so that we could be building
Clarkopolis or Zubrinopolis. At least a defensive system
articulates our position. There are certain kooks, (Robert and
Looney), who believe that we would use the defensive system as
a means to the conquer the world. We haven't done it when we
held offensive superiority. Why now?
NMD is insurance. Iraq rebuilt is insurance. We're good
people and our children deserve to be safe from the slings and
arrows.....
fredmoore
- 06:07pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (#
15248 of 15263)
Mazza,
'NMD is insurance. Iraq rebuilt is insurance. We're good
people and our children deserve to be safe from the slings and
arrows..... '
Very uplifting Tudor-Lou.
And I think too, this is a good Forum, which like the
fabric of a genetic codon, full of unfathomable repetitious
padding .... works well and works sustainably.
(15 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|