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?

gisterme - 12:13pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10673 of 10680)

rshowalt 1/6/02 3:32pm

"...Gisterme , I dont know the calculations of yours that you're referring to. Could you point them out? Thanks..."

Robert, do you remember the last scene from the film "Raiders of the Lost Arc"? When the government has placed the arc in a nondscript wooden crate and stored the crate it in an unbeliveably huge warehouse filled with many thousands of similar crates? That was a visual statement that said "not likely to be found again anytime soon". The corpus of this forum is quite like that warehouse, especially since the search function has been removed. You know that, I know that, and unfortunately, I just don't have time to go back to search for that stuff or the time to reproduce it right now.

So, your "forgetfulness" serves you well. You've even forgotten that you promised to answer and even asked for "a little more time". :-) Now after a lot more time...you can seem to answer without ever having answered. That's pretty slick, Robert. A joke I heard the other day comes to mind:

The one thing that's good about having Alzheimer's disease is that you can hide your own easter eggs...

Except you don't have Alzheimer's. If you did then maybe you'd have an excuse.

Most of what's been written here in the past is of little value for the future or even the present. Lot's of dull-grey unsweetened oatmeal, all pretty much the same, over and over. Not the sort of thing that inspires one to want to go back for a re-experience. I hope you and Dawn are not again conspiring to return to your old ritual of pumping that stuff out in such "deafening" volumes.

rshow55 - 12:37pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10674 of 10680)

gisterme , I was hoping you'd point the "calculations" out -- because the only ones I saw were, I felt, already well answered.

But I'll go back, find the ones I believe you are referring to, and deal with them again (sometimes with links - ). If the responses aren't "full dress" enough -- perhaps we can arrange more "full dress" ones.

You didn't respond on the reflective coating point I just clarified. The ease with which reflective coatings can be applied invalidates all of the lasar based missile defense programs. They are impossible for other reasons, as well. I'll take a little time to get to them.

rshow55 - 12:39pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10675 of 10680)

Gisterme , you comment:

I hope you and Dawn are not again conspiring to return to your old ritual of pumping that stuff out in such "deafening" volumes.

I'm trying to keep my responses reasonably tight. Much of my delay in responding to gisterme 11/9/01 4:36am happened because I was not permitted on the board.

The issue of reflective coatings is technically decisive. Do you contest that reflective coatings (above reflectivities, say, of 95%) are easy to put on missiles warheads, and related components?

If you don't, there's no justification for the lasar based missile defense programs - because they can't work.

They can't work for some other reasons, too. I'll deal with them in as much detail as you want, but will ask, from time to time, for comments, so that I don't "pump out" too much material.

I think in the last 12 months the world has become considerably safer -- though risks are still terrifyingly high. The Bush administration deserves some credit for that. But you guys, like other people, can make mistakes. And can inherit them, too.

Lasar based missile defense ought to be a "dead horse." Why beat it?

I wasn't inclined to. But since you ask, I'll respond.

gisterme - 02:17pm Jan 7, 2002 EST (#10676 of 10680)

rshow55 1/7/02 12:39pm

I'm not quite sure how you've become so obsessed with the possibilities of using lasers or other directed energy weapons for missile defense. We've had some fairly extensive discussion about it...you made the assertion of "can't be done", I presented some calculations showing that it could, backed up by links showing public domain performance specificaions of existing technology that could be integrated to accomplish that (basies for the calculations). You responded again with the typical Showalter "can't be done" assertion. You never went beyond that, by addressing the facts that were given. That may seem like a complete response to you, but not to me or anybody else who has any sense at all.

The point I'd like to make now is that all this arguement has been over a potential component of missile defense that is not part of the current system under development. Whether or not directed energy might be effective for missile defense has no relevance to the current test program. So why all the focus on that issue, Robert? Is it because such a system has not yet been demonstrated at the required scale? It's easier to create fog where something has not been clearly shown, right?

That said, this time I'll be the one to say reflective decals of the type you propose "can't be done". Gee, Robert, does that statement seem as much like head-in-the-sand nonsense when I direct it toward you as it does to me when you direct it toward me? Next I'll offer proof of the correctness of my statement:

You haven't shown any evidence that it can be done. Therefore it can't. Assertion proven! :-)

Heh, heh. Now that's progress! We're really getting somewhere aren't we?

That lame-brained modus operandi is just as silly when I use is as it is when you do, Robert. "I'm right until you prove me wrong". That's a good way to argue. The more bizarre the assertion, the harder it is to prove wrong. Wow. I like that. :-) Using that logic, your best possible arguement against development of a BMD system would be something like:

"Ahem. The secret, shadowy, non-elected inner circle of the government has already secretly retained shadowy god-like aliens to secretly protect us against a ballistic missile attack. That's obvious proof that the current BMD developemnt is nothing but an unnecessary pork-barrel for the MI complex."

Yes indeedie. Sombody call Art Bell...quick! He'll know what to do in an emergency like this! :-)

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense