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?

dirac_10 - 06:58pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4915 of 4936)

The Air Force aims to shoot down a theater ballistic missile with the jet by 2002, and if all goes as planned, a fleet of seven ABLs should be flying operational missions by 2008.

The contracting team will use a Boeing 747-400 airliner as the platform for the multi-megawatt laser, which will be designed to track and destroy enemy theater ballistic missiles hundreds of miles away in the early stages of flight. One type of theater ballistic missile is the SCUD - the weapon Saddam Hussein used in the Persian Gulf war to kill 28 American servicemembers and terrorize Israelis.

Secretary of the Air Force Sheila E. Widnall likened the airborne laser to the discovery of gunpowder.

"It isn't very often an innovation comes along that revolutionizes our operational concepts, tactics and strategies," Widnall said. "You can probably name them on one hand - the atomic bomb, the satellite, the jet engine, stealth, and the microchip. It's possible the airborne laser is in this league."

"The system has to be highly automated. The window of opportunity to kill a boosting missile is very short," said Col. Dick Tebay, ABL program director. "A typical missile in powered flight travels at about Mach 4, around two-thirds of a mile per second. The airborne laser's 'bullet,' however, will travel at the speed of light - 186,000 mph."

After acquiring and locking onto the target, a second laser - with weapons-class strength - will fire a three- to five-second burst from a turret located in the 747's nose. The laser's blast literally burns a hole through the missile's metal body, destroying it and raining debris down upon those launching it.

Each laser shot will expend about $1,000 worth of chemicals compared to the $1 million it costs to fire a defensive missile.

gisterme - 07:16pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4916 of 4936)

almarst wrote: "...I believe it actually does..." (have a nuclear first strike policy)

If that was US policy, almarst, it would have and could have struck long ago. That was one point that midmoon made in his post.

dirac_10 - 07:18pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4917 of 4936)

The US and the US alone had the bomb for 4 long years.

We are the only country that could have conquered the world, and chose not to.

All the others tried and failed.

Those facts, those stubborn facts...

dirac_10 - 07:20pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4918 of 4936)

Now, a person could claim that the US back in the Joe McCarthy/segregation days was more enlightened than now, but that dog won't hunt.

dirac_10 - 07:23pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4919 of 4936)

In a year, assuming it lasted that long, there wouldn't have been any Russian cities with more than 10,000 people left.

But we didn't do it. Wonder what Stalin would have done if he had it for 4 years alone?

Makes me proud to be an American.

gisterme - 07:28pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4920 of 4936)

Those facts, those stubborn facts...

:-)

Hey dirac, does the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty disallow lasers? I'm not sure but I don't think lasers are even mentioned in that treaty are they?

dirac_10 - 07:49pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4921 of 4936)

gisterme - 07:28pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4920 of 4920)

Hmmm, good point. I really don't know.

I do know that some have conjectured that it is the reason we are selling it to Israel and not using it ourselves. They didn't sign the treaty.

The key thing to remember is that we have never told the general public about our secret weapons, much less their limitations.

Notice how so few people are even aware of the laser? Sure seems like something like that would make the evening news. Have a show on the Discovery channel or something. But all is silence.

lunarchick - 07:53pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4922 of 4936)
lunarchick@www.com

The 'technical jibberish' above ... neither excites nor delights me .... technical matters have problems ... recently

B52 went up, blew up, scramjet screw up!

lunarchick - 07:55pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4923 of 4936)
lunarchick@www.com

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/topic.jhtml?t=nonprofit http://www.changemakers.net/ http://hbswk.hbs.edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=2275&t=special_reports_gac2001

lunarchick - 08:01pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4924 of 4936)
lunarchick@www.com

"People who shift paradigms have the same facts as everyone else, but they see them differently." Scott Cook

Wrong beliefs die hard

Cook underscored the importance of psychology when it comes to accepting or resisting breakthrough developments, referring to a consistent pattern that is characteristic of scientific discoveries. Frequently, he said, a solitary scientist would propose a new theory, only to be shunned by all prominent researchers in the field. Most of these authorities persisted in believing the old paradigm long after their colleague had disproved it. "Science was anything but logical in this case," Cook said. "Psychology is so powerful that it causes the greatest scientists of the ages to persist in wrong beliefs until the day they die."

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense