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.

gisterme - 02:03pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11506 of 11511)

rshow55 2/11/02 7:24pm

"...If a one time expenditure of a few hundred billions dollars had one chance in a million of saving a couple of hundred thousand lives, and saving a trillion dollars in damage then it would be a lousy investment - - - and not worth doing - people would have to look for another way...."

That would be true, if the the chances were one in a million, Robert; but your statment is dripping with spin-juice...quite misleading because it's irrelevant.

The track record of tests for the current BMD interceptor system is 2 or 3 hits out of four depending on what you call success. The very first four attempts. So the releveance of saying "if it were one chance in a million" has long since been overcome by events.

Even at worst, with the experimental program, the chances have been shown to be "two chances out of four". That's already considerably better than "one in a million", wouldn't you agree? And you can't deny that the odds of success only increase with more practice and experience in neary any field of endeavor.

Even so if the odds that a particular interceptor would destory a target never got better than 50-50, you could still increase your odds by using multiple interceptors. Get it?

gisterme - 02:42pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11507 of 11511)

rshow55 2/12/02 11:17am

"...We agree that the context is missile defense.

We agree that before we can establish umpires we must delineate the facts that are to be challenged..."

You can challenge facts all you want, Robert, but folks would agree that that's a waste of time. By definition, something that is a fact can't be changed. From Miriam Webster:

" fact... 1 : a thing done : DEED: as a obsolete : an action in general : ACTION, CONDUCT b obsolete : a meritorious or valorous deed c : a wrong or unlawful deed : CRIME — used in the phrase after the fact *an accessory after the fact*

2 obsolete : DOING, MAKING, PREPARING, PERFORMING, ACT

3 a : something that has actual existence : EVENT b : an occurrence, quality, or relation the reality of which is manifest in experience or may be inferred with certainty; specifically : an actual happening in time or space *fact in its primary meaning, as an object of direct experience, is distinguished from truth* *stubborn facts* *given facts* c : a verified statement or proposition; also : something that makes a statement or a proposition true or false

4 a : the quality or character of being actual or of being made up of facts : ACTUALITY *a question of fact hinges on the actual evidence* b : physical actuality or practical experience as distinguished from imagination, speculation, or theory *the realm of fact is distinct from fancy*..."

"... and verified using objective measurements and calculations...."

"...There do have to be calculations. And the calculations, often, will have to be for systems that are carefully defined -- well enough defined that there are words, pictures, and math together..."

Just has been done for every single significant engineering project since the dark ages? These things are already done all the time, Robert. That's what engineers do! You didn't know that...did you? Engineers produce paper, Robert, much more than they produce hardware.

You're just not included in the routing list. That's what you really want, isn't it? Nothing else makes any sense.

rshow55 - 02:42pm Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11508 of 11511)

So, are we agreed on the principles (considered as hypotheticals) in the hypothetical examples I gave in MD11489 rshow55 2/11/02 7:24pm but you didn't like the particular numbers I plugged in?

We're agreed that risk, and cost, and alternatives all matter - - and that there are ways of figuring them?

And we're agreed that the questions in MD11502 rshow55 2/12/02 11:17am are good questions? One needs to know whether or not the weapons systems can see , hit , and hurt the target. - - - Not just under ideal conditions, but tactical conditions? You can ask those questions about systems with countermeasures, as well?

I've estimated before that effective countermeasures for the midcourse interception ABM system might cost as little as one millionth of the cost of the missile system itself. Are we agreed that countermeasures do matter?

If we're agreed that far -- that's progress. Limited progress, but progress.

. . . .

The numbers used have to apply to circumstances that are understood -- and that apply where they are supposed to apply - - are we agreed about that, too?

So the numbers you're quoting apply to what they apply to. And not something else.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense