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.

wrcooper - 06:47pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15301 of 15316)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.krHGbqktQLB.3810096@.f28e622/16981

Fred:

Launching MIRV systems to decieve the US is a tall order for attcakers as launch costs are so high.

It would not be necessary for them to MIRV their ICBMs. They’d simply include a number of countermeasures with a single warhead.

Additionally these tests would risk a full scale US counter attack out of misunderstanding.

Why? In the past, the US tested rockets, and so did the ex-Soviet Union, with no ill consequences. They simply advertise their intentions in advance and target some remote region of the world’s oceans.

As for logging the data, it's the quality of the data that is imporant and each different RV should give unique return signals.

It would? How do you know that? The point of the countermeasures is to mimic the signature of the actual warhead as closely as possible. So they’d approximate the observable characteristics of the warheads. If mylar balloons were used, both countermeasures and warheads would look identical from the exterior. They’d also have identical heat signatures, since the countermeasures would include heaters to mimic the infrared signature of the warhead.

If any MIRV tests were launched one would be expecting the current technology to log precise chemical signatures of a range of depths within the RV's.

How will radar sensors penetrate an aluminized skin? You haven’t explained that. Any radar frequency will bounce off a polished, reflective surface.

High PRF coherent sources in the X-ray region could do this as coherent recollision electrons from the missile surface would penetrate any shield and provide a modulated return signal which could be analysed.

Hmm. Provide references for this. I don’t think this is true. First of all, "coherent" radar? Never heard of it. I’d like to learn more. Second of all, I don’t see how any radar source could penetrate a reflective surface, and if it did, how it would exit said skin. Please provide technical references and examples of how this works.

I don't see any problems that time and ingenuity cannot solve.

Well, by all means acquaint us with this technology. In any case, if it doesn’t exist yet, and it’s the only way to beat the low-cost countermeasures that could be used against us, we shouldn’t be forging ahead with deployment of an ABM system that doesn’t work.

almarst2003 - 08:25pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15302 of 15316)

A U.S. Army unit known as Tiger Force committed numerous war crimes during the Vietnam War, including killing scores of unarmed civilians, but an investigation was closed with no charges being brought - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=VRZ2W3MXREPD4CRBAEKSFFA?type=domesticNews&storyID=3642644

WHO IS AFRAID OF AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?

cantabb - 10:45pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15303 of 15316)

rshow55 - 04:31pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15292 of 15302)

I think we've got a good shot at having things work out well. And concisely.

Show us !

If people are to use this board - and if I'm to be able to function - what happened on this board has to be explained concisely in the ways that matter for action.

If YOU are “to be able to function” ? More insinuations.

Your indiscriminate “use” of this board clearly shows you CAN function quite well indeed –-- even after getting repeatedly banned by the NYT Forums administrator (as reported by someone here) !

What happened on this board is plain for all to see. Needs NO explanation, concise or not.

That doesn't necessarily conflict with any valid interest of the newspaper.

Your still-unclear, still-unspecified problems with NYT, CIA etc --- of NO relevance to this MD Forum or its readers.

The average reader of The New York Times ought to be able to understand that.

Why do you think ‘the average reader” of NYT would be interested in your personal problems ? Hasn’t s/he been force-fed enough already ?

rshow55: “Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES………..”

lchic: “ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation”

Between two of you, I hope you can at least see the “truth” right before you: Your personal problems are of NO relevance whatsoever to this Forum. IF you knew what specific area are you looking for the “truth” in, it might also help YOU !

No such thing as generic “truth” YET, dispensed through ATM, upon request.

(13 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense