New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 05:32pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4899 of 4915)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think that, if negotiations went at all well between nations, with current conditions, missile defense programs would fall apart of their own weight for these reasons:

1. The threats would cease to be at all credible .. . and

2. We couldn't spare the engineers on it --- there would be many too many other worthwhile things for our engineering and managerial resources to devote themselves to.

Among these things, elimination of the energy system that now, more than anything else, dominates US defense thinking -- by making large scale solar energy work -- and, technically solving the global warming problem, in a way compatible with a decent life for the world's population.

smartalix - 05:32pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4900 of 4915)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

dirac,

Yo are acting like a fool.

First, you dismiss a 40-year old publication. If you wish to insult, joke about my bona fides but don't insult a publication you would probably have to have read to you. That displays a lack of style.

Second, I never said that ground-based lasers do not exist. I said that laser systems are far from ready. there is a significant difference. By putting words in my mouth, you demonstrate yourself to be a cowardly liar, since you cannot address my point.

You are a lout.

Electronic Products is aa fine magazine, and I challenge youto back up your cowardly snide remarks. I am sorry I even broght it up, but I didn't realize I told such a complete ass.

You are stupider than I thought.

smartalix - 05:34pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4901 of 4915)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

Third,

Your arguments are pathetic, and backed with popular-magazine science. PopSci is a fine magazine, but itis not a reference.

rshowalter - 05:36pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4902 of 4915)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think something important for the cause of peace was demonstrated today, and similar things have been demonstrated in the past. Look how upset the US got when a guy killed less than 200 people by planting a bomb.

A while back, look how upset the US got when China took a few hostages, for a short while.

The US can be deterred by force considerably short of the megadeaths of MAD.

So can other countries.

With some simple arithmetic - just a rudimentary sense of proportion -- we could step back from circumstances which, today, could easily end the world.

dirac_10 - 06:04pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4903 of 4915)

smartalix - 05:32pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4900 of 4902)

Yo are acting like a fool.

Yo, yourself.

First, you dismiss a 40-year old publication.

I sure didn't. Just pointed out how someone that claims to be an editor of it is totally innocent about the big 2+ megawatt lasers in existance, that have never missed destroying a rocket.

If you wish to insult, joke about my bona fides but don't insult a publication you would probably have to have read to you.

I strongly refrain from ever using personal insults. And I rather doubt you can give me electronics lessons. No sign of it so far.

...you demonstrate yourself to be a cowardly liar... You are a lout. ...I didn't realize I told such a complete ass....You are stupider than I thought.

See what I mean by hack personal insults. And you claim you are an editor? But don't stop, it immediately discredits anything you say to any impartial observer. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

smartalix - 05:34pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4901 of 4902)

Third,

More hack personal insults? One thing is for sure, it won't include any physics.

Your arguments are pathetic,

Yep.

and backed with popular-magazine science.

Hardly. Backed by TRW. Backed by many newspapers from around the world. Backed by numerous reputable sources like the Federation of American Scientists.

PopSci is a fine magazine, but itis not a reference.

Acutally I never read it. But it picked it as the invention of the year or whatever it's called.

And you are innocent of it. And claim to be an "editor" in the field. Tsk, tsk.

dirac_10 - 06:12pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4904 of 4915)

Here's an old one from Jane's. You have heard of Jane's havent' you?

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw000612_1_n.shtml

"The test was critical for us and it fulfilled all our expectations," a senior Israeli defence official told Jane's Defence Weekly. "As far as we are concerned, this is the test that we need for deployment of the system."

Maj Gen Yitzhak Ben-Israel, Director of Research and Development

almarst-2001 - 06:19pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4905 of 4915)

For dirac, personally;)

MOBILE PHONE TECH MAY FOIL 'STEALTH' BOMBERS - http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/12/world/world2.html

almarst-2001 - 06:23pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4906 of 4915)

Sorry if I am wrong, but it seems DIRAC did not had a chance to deal with a really complex systems in his experience.

By the way, the total chance of fault of a system is much higher (a square?) of a chance of a fault of each component. Please correct me Robert, if my school year memory failed me here.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense