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?

gisterme - 06:25pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4907 of 4915)

Here's an interesting article about education from the NYT.

http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/06/12/world/12GYPS.html?Partner=MSNNews&RefId=PjxYEFnnun.uFKZO

dirac_10 - 06:26pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4908 of 4915)

And here's a nice link from the Federation of American Scientists.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm

Had enough? Convinced it isn't just Popular Science yet? There are hundreds more...

almarst-2001 - 06:30pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4909 of 4915)

gisterme 6/12/01 2:26pm

"saying that the US had a "first strike" policy. It never did."

I believe it actually does. Lets look on the Net.

almarst-2001 - 06:32pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4910 of 4915)

rshowalter 6/12/01 2:39pm

I am not against any technology. Any technology can be put to the evil use.

I am against the INTENT and the REASON behind this technology.

almarst-2001 - 06:35pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4911 of 4915)

rshowalter 6/12/01 2:43pm

"Almarst and his colleagues are tough, smart folks. "

Robert,

You make me feel uncomfortable again. You still don't believe what I said about who I am?

gisterme - 06:38pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4912 of 4915)

almarst wrote: "...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..."

It's true that all complex systems are the sum of their components, almarst. Reliability and Maintainability (RAM) calculations are pretty much plain-vanilla statistical methods that can predict the statistical frequency of failure of any system for a given number of trials. When a military system is developed one of the design parameters is that reliability figure, usually above 0.99. One of the things that makes military programs so expensive is the extensive field testing that it takes to verify those theoretical calculations.

I'd guess that the chance of a catastrophic fault in any missile hit by one of those lasers would approach 100%, wouldn't you almarst?

gisterme - 06:43pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4913 of 4915)

almarst wrote: "...You make me feel uncomfortable again. You still don't believe what I said about who I am?..."

Now there's some common ground almarst. Robert has made me feel the same way a couple of times. It's kind of wierd isn't it? I've also wondered why he seems concerned about the number of posts on this thread and why he worries about how many ring binders a printout of the thread will fill.

Robert?

dirac_10 - 06:46pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4914 of 4915)

almarst-2001 - 06:19pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4905 of 4908)

For dirac, personally;)

Why thank you...

MOBILE PHONE TECH MAY FOIL 'STEALTH' BOMBERS

Yeah, I noticed it from your post elsewhere. Sounds fishy to me. But can't rule it out.

almarst-2001 - 06:23pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4906 of 4908)

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

Well, I've had to deal with women, does that count?

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.

Only if the components depend on each other. If it takes a hundred people to shoot a gun, a very good chance you won't hit the target. But a hundred people shooting guns, your chances are improved noticably. And best of all, a hundred people shooting different kinds of guns using different ammunition from different places, best of all.

Please correct me Robert, if my school year memory failed me here

A square? In your presumed simple model, the probablities of success are multiplied. If the probabilities are equal, it is the probability raised to the power of the number of steps. With many steps the probability of hitting it approaches zero.

But it is the wrong model. It is the many steps to shoot the same gun model. The many gun model uses the probability of missing it. And it approaches zero with more layers.

Taking into account that these are simple models. And no axiomatic system is complete.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense