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 - 07:48pm Aug 5, 2002 EST (#3515 of 3545)

mazza9 8/5/02 2:57pm

Interesting post, interesting poem. We agree on some things, but not others.

My first premise is that nothing is impossible and all offense and defense can be overcome. Maginot Line anyone?

The Maginot Line was a lousy military investment -- and a dangerous thing for the French to rely on. The MD systems I've seen disclosed look worse. Lou, some specific things ARE impossible, for specific reasons. I'm sure we'd agree about that, if we talked.

Of course, a lot of things generally expressed can be achieved, some way or other. You can assess how hard specific jobs are. For MD, the jobs are VERY hard. A LOT harder than the jobs successfully done on offensive weapons in the 50's and 60's. For basic reasons that haven't changed since the 50's and 60's .

Key questions for MD systems are standard ones:

Can it see the target?

Can it hit the target?

Can it hurt the target?

These questions have to be answered in a tactically realistic context. For specific programs, these questions can be adressed clearly. The questions can be adressed clearly in the open literature - - up to the level where "required miracles" can be specified.

Not everything is possible, and a lot of things that are technically possible, if time and money are not object, aren't worth doing. MD seems to me to be in that category. Because the countermeasures to defeat any and all of the high tech MD systems I've seen cost less than a thousandth (maybe less than a millionth) of of the cost of the MD system itself. It is a lot easier to fire a bullet than "hit a bullet with a bullet" - - especially when countermeasures are taken into account. People have known this for years.

That's why on this thread I've said, again and again, that the reasonable way to deal with real missile threats from "rogue states" is interdiction. Interdiction is a technical means of missile defense, too. And as a technical matter, unlike the Buck Rogers stuff that's soaked up so much funding - it can work. That's not a pacifist's postion - but if you check - it's been mine.

But we also agree on this, Mazza:

" We need to evolve beyond the need for warfare. To settle problems or achieve ends of a personal nature we need to solve the global issues which divide rather than unite us a sentitent being on the "Third Rock From the Sun".

I was glad to hear you say that. We can build on that. I'm going to be off the thread for the rest of the evening.

Maybe soon, you and I can get together with wrcooper, and perhaps George Johnson, and sort some things out. But not tonight.

Think about a conference call, or maybe something better.

I would like to ask again:

how are key things to be established and checked? We've talked a good deal about that, and maybe the approaches referenced in MD1075-76 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm . . that were unacceptable in the old environment Greenberg speaks of might be more acceptable in the new environment?

When I've criticised MD programs - can you tell me things, of a specific, technical nature, where you think I've gotten it wrong?

rshow55 - 07:57pm Aug 5, 2002 EST (#3516 of 3545)

I'm tired for a lot of reasons. I just copied and labeled 100 8cm disks, and put them in jewel cases. The label reads:

. Missile Defense . . . archive - 30 July Edition . . . May 25, 2000 to July 17, 2002 . . . New York Times on the Web Science Forum . . . . by distinguished anonymous posters and M. Robert Showalter

Getting those disks organized took a LOT of wonderful work from a friend of mine,and fellow Phud, Mark Heumann. Just copying and preparing them has been a lot work for me.

Nobody would want to read the whole thread. But as a searchable corpus I think it can be very useful. Does it have all the "dots" anybody would want to connect? No. But it has a lot of them. More could be collected. If people took an interest, on some key issues everything anybody knew could be collected.

And connected.

And mistakes corrected.

. . . .

I've also spent a lot of time in the last few days reading what I think are very interesting and distinguished postings from almarst last year - from March 2, 2001 on. And continuing. Some of the things almarst has said - things that seemed wild to me when I read them -- seem extraordinarily perceptive now. Almarst is a distinguished poster to this thread. Gisterme , too.

Looking at the contents of this thread - it sure looks like more than a million dollars worth of work to me (setting my own efforts completely aside.) ( Anybody want a breakdown?)

Has it been a waste?

Maybe not.

Maybe even worthwhile.

Mazza and I have come to some agreements, anyway.

Out.

rshow55 - 08:01pm Aug 5, 2002 EST (#3517 of 3545)

mazza9 8/5/02 7:45pm . . . both sides were "less than polite."

As I remember, I was trained, and promised, to kill any unsuspecting mathematician on "the other side" who seemed too close to certain tactically important solutions.

That seemed less than polite to me, then and now.

. .

The Cold War was ugly. The human costs make one want to turn one's head away.

What do we do NOW ?

. .

Continuing the carnage, when it can be avoided, seems a bad idea.

. . .

Really out.

(28 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense