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.

rshow55 - 05:03pm Jul 11, 2002 EST (#3009 of 3014)

lchic 7/11/02 4:20pm . . . if their radars had 10 to 100x the resolution x, y, z - - - their job would be easier. The programmer's job would be easier, too. Now, too much has to happen with statistics, big error bands, and "sense of smell."

The ATC job would be easier with the GPS system mazza referenced, onboard most planes, as well. . . .

mazza9 - 07:37pm Jul 11, 2002 EST (#3010 of 3014)
Louis Mazza

lchic: In 1972 I was the Tactical Communications Officer for the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot North Dakota. I was responsible for the aircrew training in the new FAA Mode 3 IFF/SIF air navigation system. It was updating the equipment so that 1940s era air traffic control would be replaced by the latest state of the art systems and procedures. Guess what, with minor modifications that is still the prevalent air traffic control hadware. Newt Gingrich used this fact in his stump speech for the 1996 election cycle when he pointed out that the US government was still the largest user of vacuum tubes. They were being bought to operate and maintain 1970s era tube computers!!!!!

Except for traffic approaching or departing an airport there is no need for "contollers" dictating the movement and separation of aircraft. Indeed it appears that an equipment down for maintenance and human error were the major contributing factor.

In the 60s it was posited that roadways would have control cables buried in the center of each lane so that cars could be controlled remotely. Digging up the highways was never cost effective but today, with wireless navigation systems and Internet access you can imagine how relatively easy it would be to use a combination of GPS, cell cite and internet access of a mapping database to control automobile traffic movements. Cars could be operated at maximum, fuel efficient speeds and accidents could be bypassed and traffic rerouted to imporve the efficiency of a highway system just as the packet switching moves messages over the Internet. Fuel would be saved as well a lives!! Rental cars and high end autos are being equipped with mapping software to aid in auto navigation. With the cost of computers coming down, wouldn't make sense for all things electronic, garage door opener, auto theft system, lap top GPS and auto navigating system, as well as DVD so you can watch your favorite movie as you "go over the river and through the woods"!

rshow55 - 08:09pm Jul 11, 2002 EST (#3011 of 3014)

There's been a lot of technical discussion on this thread. The main problem with missile defense proposals is that the countermeasures, pretty generally, cost less than 1/1000 as much as the weapons themselves.

The MD job is so hard that able people can become preoccupied with details -- and there are many of them. But the key fact remains. Countermeasures are much cheaper than jobs like "hitting a bullet with a bullet" and every one of the MD proposals I've seen is a long shot.

MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 11:52am

MD20 rshow55 3/1/02 7:45pm . . .

MD14 rshow55 3/1/02 7:07pm

The board has not been dismissive of the threat MD has been designed to address - I've argued for other approaches - including diplomacy if possible - - but as a last resort interdiction - which can work, rather than "missile defense" -- which basically can't.

Perhaps arguments for interdiction on this thread have been influential.

It has never occurred to me that interdiction requires nukes - and it ought not to occur to anybody else. You don't have to have troops and tactics at the level of sophistication of The Bourne Identity to get conventional interdiction to be entirely practical - as far as missiles go. I might have some useful things to say about that, if anybody in the government asks me. I've been thinking about the nuts and bolts of interdiction a long time. I was assigned to do so.

On basic issues of MD technology - - suppose you have working MD technology? (I think there are some things that can be done.)

If those things are done - then most of our proposed expenditure for manned aircraft becomes obsolete -- because if MD becomes practical, manned aircraft are sitting ducks.

Point of information. c, the velocity of light, is 3 x 10^8 meters/second. 1 nanosecond temporal resolution resolves path length to .333 meters. .1 nanosecond temporal resolution resolves to .0333 meters. Temporal resolution is not inherently dependent on frequency, though high frequencies are somewhat easier.

Angular resolution of radar is lousy. Temporal resolution is excellent. Suppose x, y, z position was determined using path lengths, without need of any direct angular information at the signal processing level at all. What would happen?

1. We'd have tactical anti-missile technology for the fleet, and for many defense purposes.

but

2. Most of our manned aircraft programs would be obsolete. And these are big-ticket items.

Suppose x, y, z position was determined using path lengths, without need of any direct angular information at the signal processing level at all. How hard is that?

Anybody want to bet me good American money that it can't be done?

The kinds of careful accounting that we need in business is needed in engineering, too. The answers to some basic questions should give us pause.

Military capacities are important. But we need to learn to make peace, and do so stably , as well.

lchic - 08:20pm Jul 11, 2002 EST (#3012 of 3014)

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=interdiction

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense