New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 09:02am Oct 1, 2001 EST (#10055 of 10062)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD4671-4675 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:13pm

rshowalter - 11:16am Oct 1, 2001 EST (#10056 of 10062)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm taking a little time on MD10030 kangdawei 9/30/01 9:00pm . . . because it raises central points. Have I not been specific about things that need to be checked? I'm having to think some, to see if I can understand what you mean, and respond in a constructive way.

Here are responses to an important part of the set of questions gesterme asked:

In MD9896 rshowalter 9/29/01 7:44am , and links to it, I believe that I dealt with a good number of specific things to check. Let me copy some of it:

MD7141 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:26pm includes this . . .

" The lasar weapons programs are fatally flawed because reflective coatings are so effective (and can easily shed 999/1000ths of the energy that hits them http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm ) but even if that wasn't true, they require totally implausible optical resolution -- especially for a high power system. Perhaps the easiest, and most basic arguments against them depend on understanding what resolution is -- something nicely illustrated in nice links from Dawn on the Hubble Space Telescope http://www.astrophys.org/high_2001.html

I asked:

"You quibbled with a number gisterme - - - but where do you have a problem with this argument?

" Gisterme , did you, or people you consulted, actually read the links in MD9833 rshowalter 9/28/01 8:16pm , or did you simply sieze on a numerical issue that doesn't make your case, or, properly interpreted, invalidate anything substantial I've said, and assume that suffices?

The refective coating issue seems decisive - - . . . . The reflective coatings are easily enough made and applied to surfaces. Anybody who has ever used contact paper, or put a decal on a plastic model, knows how easy.

. . . .

The same coatings that are applied to make the lasar weapon work without destroying itself can be used (and much less advanced coatings can be used) to immunize the target. The US has published the wavelength of the lasar it is developing - tuning a coating is easy.

Is the issue of reflective coatings not a specific and important point?

What becomes of the program featured in the NYT magazine, about space weapons, without working lasar weapons?

. 'Battlefield: Space' by Jack Hitt http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html

What's left involves other technology that is also defective, I believe.

But just for now - isn't the reflective coating issue a specific, important technical issue -- and if reflective coatings immunize targets inexpensively - - doesn't that invalidate the lasar weapons programs?

- -

Another question - - can you, or gisterme , or anyone else, point to responses, cited in MD9896 rshowalter 9/29/01 7:44am that are not specific enough to check and tell me why they are not?

Perhaps there are examples where I haven't been specific enough, but in context, I think I've been specific enough for checking in a lot of places. Help me see where I haven't been specific enough, could you?

rshowalter - 11:40am Oct 1, 2001 EST (#10057 of 10062)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"What's left involves other technology that is also defective, I believe."

was overstated, and I want to apologize for the overstatement I see (and please correct me if I've overstated in other ways, that I don't see.)

The reconnaissance satellite work, using multicolor and spectral analysis in sophisiticated ways, looks to me like fine, constructive stuff.

But I stand by what I said, with respect to the weapons intended to directly destroy targets. At least insofar as they're described, "Buck Rogers" -- interpreted as a perjorative, seems to me a phrase that can be fairly applied.

mazza9 - 12:38pm Oct 1, 2001 EST (#10058 of 10062)
Louis Mazza

But I stand by what I said, with respect to the weapons intended to directly destroy targets. At least insofar as they're described, "Buck Rogers" -- interpreted as a perjorative, seems to me a phrase that can be fairly applied.

What are you saying. The SDI was laughingly called "Star Wars" to belittle it but the directed beam, rail gun and laser weapons work. Name calling has no positive effect on policy determinations.

LouMazza

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense