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 - 07:53pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10765 of 10774)

rshow55 1/14/02 4:12pm

"...Advances in a lot of areas of interest to the military, however, have been disappointing.... Very disapointing."

Such as?

"...That applies, many, many times, to missile defense..."

Examples please? If you will, how about some examples that make a comparison of relative failures to successs to some other "trial and error" efforts that have taken place during the development of the current technology such as development of human flight, development of steam power, internal combustion engines, rocket engines, jet engines, electrical power generation and distribution, fire fighting, construction design, motion picture projection, tool making and yes, even computer development... :-)

Do you get the point, Robert? What you're trying to say about "technological disappointments" is completely divorced from any context of reality at the moment that you attempt to attach it to any narrow field such as missile defense or defense technology in general. If you disagree, then just forget about giving the comparative examples I asked for and give one example of a major (or even minor) technology that just appeared in its finished ultimately useful optimized form overnight without any development effort or failures. You can't. That's because your idealistic revisionism with regards to technological development has no basis in reality. Your babble about the B-52 design is a perfect example.

"...And problems that defeated engineers using paper-and-pencil calculus can defeat people using computers for the exact same reasons..."

Right, Robert. That's because there are some classes of problems that we just don't know how to solve, like what is the physical meaning of mathematical singularities such as division by zero. However, numerical methods can be used to approximate solutions to many problems that don't have exact symbolic solutions, to nearly any degree of resolution. This is true of many types of differential equations.

Your statement: "...We're agreed that lasar weapons based on destroying a target by heating are completely defeated by a clean reflective decal?..."

We're absolutely not agreed about that, Robert because you haven't shown that such a decal is even nearly as close to reality as the laser it would take to make somebody want it. By the way, Robert, you know that no reflector reflects in all wavelengths...or do you? Any reflector would have to accomodate the various wavelenghts of a number of different lasers...and tuneable lasers don't seem any more far-fetched than your imaginary decals.

"...If not "impossible" -- then "extraordinarily difficult" in the sense John Pike used on related problems..."

Who the hell is John Pike? What related problems???

"...The decals also work on both decoys and warhead packages..."

Ahhh! Now I see from your use of present tense that you've conjured the decals from the hypothetical to reality. Oh my. I'll rush down to 7-11 and get some to stick on my car so the police can't use their lasers to see if I'm speeding.

"...Putting decals on satellites is easily done, too..."

Heh, heh, only if you've got an easy way to get into orbit Robert, like your imagination. :-) Mercy!

"...We need missile defense programs that can WORK. Not Buck Rogers stunts, which can't."

Right, Robert. That's why nobody is proposing any "Buck Rogers" stunts that can't work. Umm, Robert, have you noticed that a lot of our current technology is way beyond what was imagined in the original Buck Rogers comic strips? Apparently not.

Finally, why do you keep on about lasers? You can't even spell it right and it has nothing do with the BMD system currently being tested.

gisterme - 08:08pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10766 of 10774)

mazza9 1/14/02 4:08pm

"...Glad to hear from you, Gisterme."

My beloved wife is slowly but surely dying of COPD so things have been a bit unsettled for me lately. Haven't had much time for this. As I've said before though, reading and answering some of the silly stuff you post is a good distraction that requires little mental effort. It's even good for the occasional belly-laugh. Thanks for the entertainment, Robert.

rshow55 - 08:19pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10767 of 10774)

Thanks for the comment. If you do have a wife who is dying, you have my sympathy about that.

I'll answer you in the morning.

This thread is full of examples -- and I give them to you, and you quickly deflect - - - changing the subject very rapidly.

I think an approach such as that set out in rshow55 1/14/02 7:36pm could deal well with examples, and do so to reasonable closure, in ways that neither you nor I could manipulate.

Would you be for that?

out.

gisterme - 08:28pm Jan 14, 2002 EST (#10768 of 10774)

mazza9 1/14/02 4:08pm

"...I have yet to see such a clean launch. In fact, the probablities of this defense working is zero and none..."

That seems right to me, Lou. The booster body is going to change shape with heat and flex under the vibration and stress of launch. It will be travelling at hypersonic speeds before it exits the atmosphere as will the re-entry vehicles on their way in to their targets. In both cases there will be a lot of heat before any laser can be fired. I'm not sure just how great the internal pressure is inside a solid-fuel rocket booster, but as we learned from the Challenger tragedy, the plasma within that booster fuselage is searching for any way to get out. Even the tiniest pinhole would be enough to cause a catastrophic failure.

Development of a reflective coating or decal to defeat high energy lasers would require a large expensive program that I'm sure plenty of contractors in the MI complex would love to pursue if anybody were to fund it. Maybe Robert should make a proposal... :-)

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense