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 - 10:45am Jan 26, 2002 EST (#11057 of 11065)

A technical achievement, that surely represents much hard work from many people, but an approach that may have no military function at all - because the success showed has to be combined with many other difficult things.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-1473730,00.html

"Friday's planned test was the first to send an interceptor fired from a ship at sea into space to collide with a dummy missile. Other tests have used interceptor rockets launched from land.

"The latest test was designed so that the anti-missile "kinetic warhead" was virtually guaranteed to smash into the dummy missile.

But to what purpose?

"Critics say the missile defence programme is too expensive and unrealistic, arguing that the few countries with the technology to threaten America could find ways to defeat missile defences.

These "few countries" could find ways to defeat missile defenses, and do so easily. The lasar weapons approaches to MD are all defeated by reflective coatings -- including easily available gold coated mylar, in wide use in the space program since the 1960's. With higher reflectances than gold leaf has shown for 5000 years possible (with and probably without metal reflectors incorporated.) We also know that coatings to much reduce radar reflection (stealth coatings) have been long used, and are on Russian made missiles now being retired. Hybrids aren't just possible, but inevitable -- because they are vastly cheaper and technically easier than the missile defenses they defeat.

"Rocket science" has been going on a long time. The risks are clear and present - and we have to deal with them in ways that can work.

From today's http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/26/international/asia/26INDI.html India Tests Missile, Stirring a Region Already on Edge by CELIA W. DUGGER

Mr. Santhanam said the political leadership gave the go- ahead to develop a missile with a 400- mile range only 15 months ago to fill a perceived gap. "The technologies are mature," he said.

We'll need international cooperation to control these weapons. Which means we have to be reasonable and law abiding outselves.

rshow55 - 10:53am Jan 26, 2002 EST (#11058 of 11065)

mazza9 1/25/02 11:16pm the procedures, patterns, and levels of honesty shown by Enron were spectacularly successful, and even much praised, for a long time. Then, suddenly, the success collapsed.

I'm extraordinarily concerned about nuclear safety. For reasons much discussed on this thread before. I have plenty of reason -- somewhat reinforced by your dialog, and by the "enronnation" of missile defense and related issues, here and elsewhere.

mazza9 - 11:05am Jan 26, 2002 EST (#11059 of 11065)
Louis Mazza

ichic:

No one has been murdered by the nuclear power industry.

RShow55: The Indian rocket that was tested yesterday had all the "markings" that are used for photographing and analyzing the lift off. Indeed, those markings, (not your alleged foil), are included in the manufacturing process. An easy target for lasers, which do work. Ask yourself, would you allow yourself to be encapsulated in foil and then allow an ABL to target you from 50 miles away? My prediction-RShow55 soup!

LouMazza

lchic - 11:07am Jan 26, 2002 EST (#11060 of 11065)

The Enron matters are supposedly in clear, in the open, in front of the people .... but they aren't!

lchic - 11:08am Jan 26, 2002 EST (#11061 of 11065)

mAzzA - ever been to the UKRAINE?

lchic - 11:14am Jan 26, 2002 EST (#11062 of 11065)

""In the Ukraine, the major-general continued, no safe conditions for the storage of nuclear warheads existed. The number of war heads stored in one store-room exceeded the norm by three to five times. Due to these circumstances, also the environment was exposed to higher radiation. "Isvestija" also reported on the results of a study on strategical nuclear missiles of the SS-24 type, stationed in an army division near the southern Ukrainian city of Pervomaisk. At 15 combat-ready launching platform, the deadline for the necessary maintenance checks were exceeded by eight to ten months. Another three strategic combat missiles would simply stop to function within two months. Russian military officials noted that the dangerous conditions the weapons were in had only started after the Ukraine had agreed to take over the control on them.

Kiev had said that it would take care of the maintenance of the weapons as well as the costs connected to that, until the question of whose country the weapons belong to was being resolved. The necessary amount of money to be spend on the taking care of the weapons has not been spend yet, as the Ukraine does simply not have the resources to maintain the launching platforms and the nuclear warheads.

From Nikitin's point of view, not all the faults can be corrected again. "Some technical processes are irreversible already. The only possibility now is to bring the warheads and missiles which need to undergo maintenance work urgently into secured conditions." 'Isvestija' states that at this time, 176 missile silos containing some 1250 nuclear warheads as well as 130 old SS-19 and 46 new SS-24 missiles. "" http://www.antenna.nl/wise/390/3804.html

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense