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 - 09:56am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4060 of 4069)

Showalter:

You wrote:

My own judgement is that the beam weapons are grossly far-fetched -- and I suggest that be checked - but I don't say "impossible" in any strict sense. Though I don't rule it out.

I also say that, so far as I can tell - - it is maybe a thousand to a million times easier (meaning cheaper) to defeat a given BMD system than to build it. And for the examples I've been able to see and think about - that seems right. Do you object to this? rshow55  (# 4022 )

---

If "far easier" is in the proportion I suggest - that is 1000 to a million times less costly than the BMD systems defeated - do we have other technical details worth talking about? rshow55  (# 4024 )

What's the data upon which you base these figures? What's your source? Is it authoritative? Have you confirmed it? Have you double-checked the figures through another source?

Secondly, what difference would it make even if the interceptors or interdiction system did cost a million times more to build than its countermeasures? If the interceptors actually worked--if they could defeat the countermeasures--that would be a cheap price to pay in comparison to what would be lost in a nuclear attack on an American city. Wouldn't you agree?

wrcooper - 10:03am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4061 of 4069)

wrcooper 8/31/02 9:56am

Showalter

I think you'd agree, as an engineer, that the figures you cited--a "thousand to a million" times more costly--since they range over three orders of magnitude, sound fuzzy and nonauthoritative. That's why I'm asking for your source and for their scientific justification.

rshow55 - 10:10am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4062 of 4069)
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.

No, Cooper, I wouldn't agree. The cost is prohibitive. Because there are much better alternatives.

I'll take some time to answer your questions.

But yes, - I've checked, -- and talked extensively about how the issues could be checkd without trusting me or anybody else - - at the level of "here, look for yourself."

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense