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 - 08:18pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11380 of 11392)

Gisterme , the reason for umpires is pretty widely understood. They provide order, and closure. Simplification.

MD11045 rshow55 1/25/02 2:34pm MD11046 rshow55 1/25/02 2:50pm

MD10716 rshow55 1/9/02 5:57pm

these specific pieces show how things could be done.
MD8211 rshowalter 8/28/01 4:35pm ... MD8212 rshowalter 8/28/01 5:07pm
MD8213 rshowalter 8/28/01 5:15pm .... MD8214 rshowalter 8/28/01 5:23pm
MD8215 rshowalter 8/28/01 5:42pm

Missile defense is a valid concern. There are strong reasons to be concerned about weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, and the ways they might be delivered.

But we need to deal with these issues in ways that can work . Not ways that cannot possibly work.

I've had enough. Tomorrow is another day. Out.

mazza9 - 10:49pm Feb 8, 2002 EST (#11381 of 11392)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

Regarding the reference beam, the original such beam was a sodium laser that projected an image in the upper atmoshere, Its reflection was received by the telescope/laser and the algorythms were applied to the AO mirror. In my AO speech I have a phot from a early 90s Scientific American which demonstrates the technique and also has a picture of a techinican leaning over the deformable mirror.

Also the system is supposed to have a range of 200 miles, so when you calculate the energy delivered it is not at 1000km but 333km.

Consider the "Evil States". The ABL would be orbiting over Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia and could defend against a launch from Iraq or Iran. Station ABLs in South Korea and the same advantage is obtained against North Korea. The mere presence of the ABL would produce the deterrence we desire. These countries would know that any launch would be countered and the response to their action would be DEVESTATING!!!

The diplomatic leverage would swing to our position. We could then get about the business of negating these regimes.

Negate these regimes...Well now you have to visit my threads at the Space Exploration Forum.

If I were the president and could set the course for the 21st Century here is what I would announce.

1. By the year 2050 ALL heavy industry would be moved off planet to the LaGrange Points,(Kudos to Dr O'Neil of Princeton). The moon would be mined for the raw materials and Dr. O'Neil's Solar Power Generating Satellites would be picking up mose of the electrical load of the planet, (Good bye Kyoto concerns)

2. The unlimited resources of space, both material and energy, would improve everybody's standard of living.

3. Dictators and Despots would be disposed of by a population yearning to be free and prosperous.

4. We'll achieve our destiny and begin our march Ad Astra!

LouMazza

lchic - 12:34am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11382 of 11392)

Damage done by any one party against another results in claims for compensation.

The damage that could be inflicted by Nukes is such that from both an ethical and financial stance they are unusable.

The move should be to bring people who have, or might have them, into line.

lchic - 12:42am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11383 of 11392)

Many have a GUT FEELING that Nukes should come down. Such feelings might be polled or ballot boxed ... or people might really believe that leaderships are there to act in a fair and proceedable manner.

The standard business manager/accountant would have an interest in efficiently providing materials to be used in warfare.

They might never have had to sit-up and consider the ethical questions ... it happens .. just go along with the system .. collect pay cheques .. say 'yes' at appropriate times.

lchic - 12:44am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11384 of 11392)

An Engineer will say 'Tell me what you want, and i'll meet that need' ... a talented profession that can do a lot of good for humanity on many levels. Folks who are enthused when their work can be seen 'working' for the people.

lchic - 12:49am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11385 of 11392)

Following the USA currently it seems that there will have to be a stance to determine the government funding can be redirected from the redundant to areas that are real - and where people can offer real appreciation.

Gut feelings don't cut it when it comes to the finer aspects of decision making.

Many of the activities in the defence area are complex, involving teams and teams of engineers - working for their pay cheques.

If defense spending had to be re-adjusted down, then what thinking frameworks and models might be employed and/or devised to give a language and thinking strategy, so that advisors could offer proposals to government as to where best to put funding, and where to phase out redundant projects.

Any ideas here Showalter?

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense